Maharna Pratap Ram Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 16-04-2025

¶12

Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, learned counsel for

¶13

the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection

¶15

with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 390 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 17.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act, 2022.

¶16

Recovery is of 48.96 liters of Foreign liquor.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶18

petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Initially, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Vishun Kumar Paswan. He further submits that it

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15303 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 2/4

¶20

appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been made from the vehicle in question and the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor or the vehicle in question. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr. P.C. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the prearrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner carries two more cases of similar nature but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.

¶22

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.LJ.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

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15303 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 3/4

¶24

purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the the petitioner and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused person namely Vishun Kumar Paswan, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. 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 Excise-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Durgawati PS. Case No. 390 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

¶26

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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶27

If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15303 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 4/4

¶29

for cancellation of bail.

¶30

And further condition that the court below shall

¶31

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.

¶32

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶33

Ibrar//-

¶34

U T

Maharna Pratap Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharna Pratap Ram 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

Bashudev Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Sao Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Dinkar Mahto @ Dinkar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Singh Vs The State of Bihar