The petitioner was released on bail after being arrested under Sections 30(a), 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.95521 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 622 Year 2020 Thana CHAPRA TOWN District Saran Kusum Mahto aged about 48 years Male son of Kailash Mahto resident of Adda no. 2 Roopganj P.S. Chapra Town District Saran at Chapra ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Radha Mohan Singh Advocate Mr. Nityanand APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s Date : 02 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 27.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nityanand learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chapra Town PS Case No. 622 of 2020 dated 23.11.2020 instituted under Sections 30(a) 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016of the Act would not come into play. Further it was submitted that he has no criminal 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.95521 dt.02 08 2021 one of the persons who had run away when the police reached the spot from where recovery has been effected. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as recovery is not from the property of the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent the Court is inclined to allow his prayer for pre arrest bail. 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 Special Judge Excise Saran at Chapra in Chapra Town PS Case No. 6220 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.95521 dt.02 08 2021 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 (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Sections 30(a), 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. This is in connection with Chapra Town PS Case No. 622 of 2020 dated 23.11.2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Kusum Mahto versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.9553 of 2021, Mr. Radha Mohan Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nityanand represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners along with three others were accused of storing liquor at the bank of Ghaghra river, when the police on secret information visited the place, the petitioners were seen fleeing from the spot to the other side via a boat they have been named and identified and the police recovered 50 liters of country-made liquor in ten packets. The counsel representing the petitioners submitted that these accusations are false no solid evidence or independent source of identification was made. The names were taken only because they were known to the informant (assistant sub-inspector of police) since many people fled and only four have been named shows the falsity of the identification. The recovery of the liquor was not made from the premises owned by the petitioners nor do they have any other connection regarding the same therefore section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 will not come into motion, further, the counsel stated that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. According to the additional public prosecutor, the petitioners were identified as one of the persons who had run away and the petitioners were at the spot where the same recovery of 50 liters of country-made liquor was recovered and therefore they must be held liable for the same. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the high court of Patna held that  “as recovery is not from the property of the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow his prayer for pre-arrest bail.” 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  Special Judge, Excise, in connection to PS Case No. 622 of 2020, 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.” The court concluded that “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. 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.”