Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being arrested under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.297521 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 151 Year 2020 Thana RAGHOPUR District Vaishali Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai Male aged about 27 years son of Surendra Rai resident of Village Litiyahi P.S. RaghopurDistt. ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Rudal Singh Advocate Mr. Jai Narain Thakur APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s Date : 03 08 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT 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 23.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Rudal Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain Thakur learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Raghopur PS Case No. 151 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016of the Act only on suspicion that the recovery of liquor was from the banana field of the petitioner. It was submitted that in Diyara area there is no demarcation of any boundary and wrongly it is alleged that the recovery was from the banana field of the petitioner. Thus learned counsel submitted that there is nothing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.297521 dt.03 08 2021 to connect the petitioner to the recovered liquor and the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act would not apply. 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner has been named in the FIR as one of the persons who had run away on seeing the police. However it was not controverted that recovery is not from the land or premises owned by the 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as the present case is concerned only on account of name taken by the informant that the petitioner was also one of the persons who had fled away without disclosing the source of identification it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioner was among the persons who had fled away at least for forming a tentative view as to whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to attract the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act. Accordingly 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 Additional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.297521 dt.03 08 2021 Sessions Judge II cum Excise Court Vaishali at Hajipur in RaghopurPS Case No. 1520 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 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 petitioner 10. The petition stands disposed of in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.297521 dt.03 08 2021 (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, “Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of any intoxicant or liquor.” This is in connection with Raghopur (Rustampur OP) PS Case No. 151 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020. This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 3rd  of August 2021 by the honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Jitendra Kumar versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.29757 of 2021 Mr. Rudal Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain 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 along with two others was accused of indulging in the business of liquor, the police on information when he approached the thatched hut in the Palani belonging to the co-accused, and on seeing the police he ran away also about 76.83 liters of liquor was seized from the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sub-inspector of police(Informant) has not disclosed how the petitioner was identified, as per the FIR, the recovery of the 76.83 liters of liquor was made from the hut belonging to the co-accused and not the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with regard to the recovered liquor and has been falsely implicated only because the petitioner is likely to contest in the upcoming Mukhiya election. The counsel held that the allegations against the accused were merely on suspicion under section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 therefore the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the bar of section 76(2) of the act will not apply. The additional Public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has been named in the FIR as one of the persons who had run away after seeing the police. However, the Prosecutor said it is not controverted that recovery was not made from the land or 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 with two sureties  to the Additional Sessions Judge  in connection with  PS Case No. 151 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the 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.” The court concluded that “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 the cancellation of his bail bonds. 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 the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner” Click here to read the judgment