Petitioner released on bail after being arrested under Sections 30/30(a)/38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: High court of Patna

Date : 30 07 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 102421 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 298 Year 2020 Thana NANPUR District Sitamarhi Bujun Rai @ Gujun Rai @ Shiv Jee Rai @ Sudhir Kumar Male aged about 45 years Son of Kailash Rai Resident of Village Bahurar Police Station Nanpur District Sitamarhi The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s Appearance : For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Ms. Madhubala Verma Advocate Mr. Vinod Sankar Modi APP The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.07.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Ms. Madhubala Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Sankar Modi learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Nanpur PS Case No. 298 of 2020 dated 30.07.2020 instituted under Sections 30 30(a) 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016of the Act with regard to maintainability of the present petition. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submitted that he has also no connection with co accused Anita Devi who was caught and her husband Sikandar Das and surprisingly the said Sikandar Das who is the owner of the house has not been made accused. 7. Learned APP submitted that the co accused has stated that the wine recovered from her hut belonged to the petitioner. However it was not controverted that the recovery Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 102421 dt.30 07 2021 3 4 has not been made from the premises owned by the petitioner. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J. II Sitamarhi in Nanpur PS Case No. 298 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal criminal activity act in violation of any law statutory provisions tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause shall also lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 102421 dt.30 07 2021 4 4 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the aforementioned terms. 10. The petition stands disposed of Anjani 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 30 Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, “Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of any intoxicant or liquor”, section 30(a), “Manufactures, possesses, buys, sells, distributes, collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports, removes or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor and section 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 which is now deleted after the amendment. This is in connection with Nanpur PS Case No. 298 of 2020 dated 30.07.2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 30th of July 2021 in the case of Bujun Rai versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 10243 of 2021, Ms. Madhubala represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Modi represented as the additional Public Prosecutor for the state of Bihar, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused of keeping illicit wine near the hut of a co-villager (Sikandar Das) and when the police on information went to the spot she caught Anita Devi while he was searching for the illicit wine, the police recovered 13.56 liters of wine and arrested the lady however the lady accused the petitioner of keeping the wine in her house. The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner is the co-villager of co-accusation and these allegations are falsely implicated because the village politics and it was submitted that the recovered wine was not from the premises owned by the petitioner and therefore it is not reasonable to connect him to such a crime, the co-accused made this statement just to save herself from section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The counsel further conceded that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent and has no connection with the co-accused (Anita Devi) and the husband of the arrested lady who is the owner of the premises has not been accused. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the co-accused( Anita Devi) clearly stated that the wine which was recovered from her hut belonged to the petitioner  and there was no objection against the fact that the recovery was not made from the premises owned by the petitioner After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned additional district judge.-II, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2)Cr. P.C., 1973 “ (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity.”