Allowed

Bharat Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Nov 2022CR. MISC./51006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners in a case involving seizure of country-made liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016. Reliance was placed on Ram Vinay Yadav case. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions, including non-tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties of like amount within 30 days of arrest or surrender, subject to conditions.

Bharat Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51006 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- KOPA District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

BHARAT MANJHI S/o Late Ram Briksh Manjhi

¶5

Usha Devi W/o Suresh Manjhi

¶6

Premshila Kuer W/o Late Bisheshwar Manjhi All R/o village- Pokhar Bhinda, P.S.- Kopa, District- Saran at Chapra

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 21-11-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to

¶15

remove the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30/ 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.

¶18

Recovery is of 35 liters of country made liquor.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 have clean antecedent. Petitioner No.2 has got one more case other than the present one. They have

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51006 of 2022(2) dt.21-11-2022 2/4

¶21

falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submits that the recovery has been made from the Nahar in village of Pokhar Vinda and not from petitioners’ possession. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioners. There is noncompliance 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners, let the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51006 of 2022(2) dt.21-11-2022 3/4

¶26

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 Kopa P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51006 of 2022(2) dt.21-11-2022 4/4

¶31

acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶32

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶33

Nitesh/- U T

Bharat Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Manjhi 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

Kumar Abhishek Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Dukhan Paswan @ Rajballam Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikky Yadav @ Gopal Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Permeshwar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar