Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 19-03-2025

¶13

Heard Ms. Sarita Kumari, learned Advocate for the

¶14

petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

¶16

with Excise P.S. Case No. 401 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

¶17

The police on a tip off trafficking of illicit wine conducted raid and seized ACE Gold Magic Container from which 351 litres of illicit Indian made foreign liquor was recovered. On noticing the police party, the accused persons succeeded in fleeing away. The FIR suggests that while the accused persons were fleeing away they were taking the name of each other including the name of the petitioner.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10566 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/3

¶19

Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR contended that the entire allegation levelled in the FIR at least to the extent of disclosure of the name of the petitioner by persons who were fleeing away does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the alleged recovery has been made from ACE Gold Magic Container with which the petitioner has no concern. Neither the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question nor he has any connection with other coaccused persons. The alleged recovery has been made nearby Shivmandir Maheshwara Bandh . Only on account of one criminal antecedent, the name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case; moreover there are various other infirmities in the search and seizure.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.

¶21

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from an open place, which is easily access to all, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has no concern with the vehicle in question and in the aforesaid premise, this Court finds that there is no application of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, let the petitioner

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10566 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 3/3

¶23

abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Begusarai in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 401 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

Anjani/-

¶26

U T

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Lakshman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Roushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aniket Yadav @ Aniket Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kapurava Devi Vs The State of Bihar