Allowed

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav @ Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jan 2022CR. MISC./7264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter arising from a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner pending restoration of normalcy due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bonds pending restoration of normalcy, to be converted to monetary bail within eight weeks upon normalcy.

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7264 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR YADAV @ BAHADUR YADAV @ SUNIL KUMAR Son of Doman Prasad @ Doman Yadav Resident of Village- Dhibra Par, P.S.Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Harsh Anuj For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 22-01-2022 Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

¶13

The matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

¶16

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶17

The prosecution case, in short, is that 180 liters wine

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7264 of 2021(2) dt.22-01-2022 2/3

¶19

is recovered.

¶20

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired as the recovery is made from the joint house of the petitioner where other family members also reside. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that180 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

¶21

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R./complaint case.

¶22

It is necessary to indicate here that this Court while considering the prayer made in the present anticipatory bail application has taken note of the exponential rise in number of covid cases due to outbreak of third wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Further this Court can also not lose sight of the fact that the condition of jails is not conducive and suitable to the present situation which has arisen due to the sudden rise in covid cases.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7264 of 2021(2) dt.22-01-2022 3/3

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bonds to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-III-cumSpecial Judge, Excise, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 356/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶26

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶27

Pankaj/-

¶28

U T

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav @ Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav @ Sunil Kumar 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

Shahjahan Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Sultan @ Sultan Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Sushma Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Archana Kumari Bharti Vs the State of Bihar

Mangal Kumar @ Mangal Mahto Vs the State of Bihar through Inspector of Excise, Begusarai.

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through Vigilance, Patna