Allowed

Niraj Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Nov 2023CR. MISC./66240/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an excise case where 30.5 quintals of Mahua were seized from a poultry farm. Noting clean antecedents and recovery issues, the Court directed release upon arrest within four weeks subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount within four weeks of arrest or surrender.

Niraj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66240 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2019 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== NIRAJ KUMAR SON OF LATE RAM PRAVESH @ RAM PRAVESH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PEARPURA, POLICE STATION - KHIRI MORE, DISTRICT - PATNA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baijnath Sah For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 01-11-2023

¶9

Heard Mr. Baijnath Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khirimore P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023 dated 25.01.2023 registered for the offence under Sections 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶11

Recovery is of 30.5 quintals of Mahua.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the seizure list, it appears that nothing has been recovered from

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66240 of 2023(2) dt.01-11-2023 2/4

¶14

the house or conscious possession of the petitioner rather the alleged recovery has been made from the poultry farm of the petitioner. He further submits that there is noncompliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. while preparing the seizure list, therefore, no case would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Moreover, co-accused, Abhitabh Kumar @ Amitabh Kumar @ Amitabh Sao and Ajjet Kumar @ Ajeet Sao have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46407 of 2023.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner referring to the provisions contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submits that this application seeking pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

¶16

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) P.L.J.R. 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

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66240 of 2023(2) dt.01-11-2023 3/4

¶18

submission of counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has got clean antecedent and the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the, above named, petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (Excise), Danapur Patna in connection with Khirimore P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also with the following conditions:-

¶20

(1) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.

¶21

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66240 of 2023(2) dt.01-11-2023 4/4

¶23

the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶24

And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶26

brajesh/-

¶27

U T

Niraj Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vidya Nand Sinha Vs Bihar State Electricity Board

Hari Prasad Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Bhola Chauhan Vs State of Bihar