Allowed

Suryadeo Singh v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Nov 2022CR. MISC./45670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter arising from a prohibition case involving foreign liquor recovery, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, emphasizing that recovery was not from their possession and directing the lower court to release them on bail upon surrender within 30 days subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon arrest or surrender within 30 days; bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties;

Suryadeo Singh Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45670 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2022 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

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

¶4

Suryadeo Singh Son Of Kamal Singh

¶5

Vinod Kumar Singh Son Of Not Given In Petition Both R/O Village- Repura Rampur Balli, P.S.- Saraiya (Jaintpur O.P.), Dist.Muzaffarpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 25-11-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual Court proceeding.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272,273,34 of IPC and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

Recovery is of 19.35 liters of foreign liquor.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45670 of 2022(2) dt.25-11-2022 2/4

¶18

petitioners have clean antecedent. They have falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submits that the recovery has been made from Poultry Farm and not from petitioners’ possession. The motorcycle in question also does not belong to the petitioners. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioners. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners 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.

¶20

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) PLJR 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 petitioners.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45670 of 2022(2) dt.25-11-2022 3/4

¶23

recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with Saraiya (Jaintpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 100 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

¶24

(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶25

(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶26

And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45670 of 2022(2) dt.25-11-2022 4/4

¶28

cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶30

Nitesh/-

¶31

U T

Suryadeo Singh v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryadeo Singh 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

Shree Kanchan Kumar Datta Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjeet Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Sujeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Uma Shankar Sahani Vs the State of Bihar

Raja Singh @ Abhishek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bholi Mandal @ Bibhash Mandal Vs the State of Bihar