Allowed

Kumar Abhishek v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Nov 2022CR. MISC./45238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a liquor possession case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, allowing release if arrested within 30 days upon furnishing bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender within 30 days on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Kumar Abhishek Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45238 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2020 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kumar Abhishek Son Of Late Prakash Kumar Resident Of House No. 342, Nehru Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

2 18-11-2022

¶7

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajanan Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶10

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the virtual court proceeding.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) and 41(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶13

Recovery is of 24 liters of liquor.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the recovery has been made from the apartment and car in question and not from petitioner’s possession. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45238 of 2022(2) dt.18-11-2022 2/3

¶16

of Cr.P.C. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

¶18

This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 . Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Patliputra

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45238 of 2022(2) dt.18-11-2022 3/3

¶21

P.S. Case No. 342 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

¶22

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶23

If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶24

And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶26

vanisha/-

Kumar Abhishek v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Abhishek v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ali Ahmad @ Munna @ Munna Boss @ Ali Ahmad Munna Vs the State of Bihar

Chandeshwar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Dukhan Paswan @ Rajballam Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Mohan Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar