Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Mahton @ Arun Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78405 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2021 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai

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

ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN KUMAR MAHTON @ ARUN KUMAR VERMA SON OF SRI KRISHNA MOHAN VERMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAGWAN, P.S.- BAKHRI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar BIHAR

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shaishav Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 03-01-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 332 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act and Section 120(B) of the I.P.C.

¶14

As per prosecution case, 5884.92 litre illicit Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the truck in question which was being driven by co-accused Manoj Mahto and he was apprehended on the spot. It is further alleged that other managed to escape from the spot.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78405 of 2023(3) dt.03-01-2024 2/4

¶17

as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and during course of investigation petitioner has been named by the local chowkidar in the present case as he has inimical term with the local chowkidar. Petitioner has been roped in the similar nature of offences one after another in a routine manner without any basis. He further submits that petitioner is neither owner nor driver of the truck in question and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to his criminal antecedent. No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2023. Learned counsel submits through supplementary affidavit that petitioner bears criminal antecedent of six cases. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that co-accused Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Mahton, who has apprehended on the spot, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 2001 of 2022 and the case of the present petitioner stands on better footing to the case of above stated co-accused person keeping in view that petitioner is not apprehended on the spot and he is not in any way connected with the alleged occurrence and hence, petitioner also deserves bail. Co-accused Vikash

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78405 of 2023(3) dt.03-01-2024 3/4

¶19

Kumar has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 18488 of 2023. Similarly, coaccused Rakesh Roy @ Rakesh Kumar has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 36938 of 2022.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioner is not apprehended on the spot, co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this court, 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 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, 2nd, Excise Act, Begusarai in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 332 of 2021, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78405 of 2023(3) dt.03-01-2024 4/4

¶25

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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶28

shahzad/-

¶29

U T

Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Mahton @ Arun Kumar Verma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Mahton @ Arun Kumar Verma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Das @ Shiv Shankar Vs the State of Bihar

Mohan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Manoj Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Sandeep Ojha Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar