Allowed

Nanhu Nat @ Nanhu Natraj @ Nanhu v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Oct 2022CR. MISC./55402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting bail to petitioner in excise case for illegal liquor trade. Court noted recovery was from abandoned vehicle and case was charge-sheeted. Bail granted on Rs.10,000 bond with specific conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

Nanhu Nat @ Nanhu Natraj @ Nanhu Vs The State of Bihar — Corruption | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55402 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Rohtas

¶3

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

¶4

NANHU NAT @ NANHU NATRAJ @ NANHU Son of Ram Pukar Nat @ Ram Pukar Natraj Resident of Village - Amri Tola, P.s.- Sasaram (M), Distt.Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 21-10-2022

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State through virtual Court proceedings.

¶11

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Excise Case No. 87 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

¶13

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 07.04.2022.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is to be engaged in illegal trade of illicit liquor, where, there is recovery of 264 litres of illicit Kingfisher beer.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55402 of 2022(2) dt.21-10-2022 2/3

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that recovery has been made from abandoned vehicle, parked on road in Amri Tola, as such, it cannot be said that the alleged recovery has been made from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is involved in one other similar nature of case, in which, he is on bail. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case has been completed, for which, chargesheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶17

Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of bail, fairly conceded the fact that recovery was made from abandoned vehicle, parked on road.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, as the alleged recovery has not been made from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Excise Case No. 87 of 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise, Court No.I, Rohtas at Sasaram/concerned

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55402 of 2022(2) dt.21-10-2022 3/3

¶20

court, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

“(i)That petitioner shall not

¶22

involve in the similar nature of offence till the conclusion of trial, failing which, the State shall be at liberty to move before the Trial Court itself for the cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

¶23

(ii) Accused/Petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the petitioner duly supported by the documents.

¶24

(iii) That one of the bailors shall be Ram Pukar Nat @ Ram Pukar Natraj, who is the Father of the petitioner and deponent of the present bail petition.”

¶25

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶26

R.S.Sen/-

¶27

U T

Nanhu Nat @ Nanhu Natraj @ Nanhu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhu Nat @ Nanhu Natraj @ Nanhu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through A.D.G. Vigilance

Amit Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Suman Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Chotu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar