Allowed

Kamlesh Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Jan 2023CR. MISC./61838/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition in an excise case involving recovery of Mahua wine. The petitioner, in custody since May 2022, was not apprehended on the spot and a charge sheet had been submitted. The court granted conditional bail after framing of charge with a Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Conditional bail granted after framing of charge on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties to Special Judge, Excise-Ist, Aurangabad.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61838 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2021 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

KAMLESH YADAV S/o Late Dharamdeo Yadav Resident of village- Sonar Chak, P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Rathour For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 04-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Salaiya P.S. Case No. 27 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.

¶13

As per prosecution case, 15 litre Mahua wine alongwith other apparatus used for making the wine was recovered from the place of occurrence. There is allegation that petitioner and others were involved in manufacturing and sale of Mahua wine.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2022 and bears criminal antecedent of six cases in which five cases are of similar nature. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61838 of 2022(2) dt.04-01-2023 2/3

¶16

likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is not apprehended on the spot. The name of the petitioner is dragged in this case merely on suspicion and there is no iota of evidence to demonstrate the complicity of the petitioner with alleged occurrence. The petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him in FIR. There is no compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioner is not apprehended on the spot, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, after framing of charge on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise – Ist, Aurangabad in connection with Salaiya P.S. Case No. 27 of 2021, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61838 of 2022(2) dt.04-01-2023 3/3

¶21

affidavit in bail application.

¶22

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

¶23

(iii) 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

(iv) Petitioner shall furnish mobile number at the time of furnishing bail bond and the said mobile number shall continue in operating condition till disposal of the case and he shall get his presence marked before the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station on the first Tuesday of every month.

¶25

(v) Petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned trial court without appropriate permission of the court concerned.

¶26

(vi) However, if petitioner violates any of the conditions, the learned trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶27

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶28

alok/-

¶29

U T

Kamlesh Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Yadav 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

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sourav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Yogi Yadav @ Yogendar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Kameshwar Kapar @Kameshwar Vs the State of Bihar

Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Gaurabh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar