Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3945 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29757 of 2021
      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.- Raghopur (Rustampur O.P.), Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rudal Singh, Advocate
 For the State            :        Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-08-2021

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

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Raghopur (Rustampur OP) PS Case No. 151 of 2020 dated

15.10.2020, instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar

Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Act').

5. The allegation against the petitioner and two others Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29757 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021

is that when the police on information that they were indulging

in business of liquor had gone to the thatched hut in the palani

of co-accused, Pintu Kumar, seeing the police, three persons had

run away and from the said hut of co-accused Pintu Kumar, total

76.830 litres of liquor was seized.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the Sub Inspector of Police, who is the informant, has not

disclosed as to how the petitioner was identified and further, that

as per the FIR itself the thatched hut in the palani from which

such recovery was made belongs to Pintu Kumar and not the

petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no

connection with the said recovered liquor and has been falsely

implicated as he is likely to contest the upcoming Mukhiya

election. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has one

case earlier against him under Sections 394 and 412 of the

Indian Penal Code and in another case during investigation, he

has been made accused which is under Section 30(a) of 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.29757 of 2021 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

petitioner.

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/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29757 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021

Sessions Judge-II-cum Excise Court, Vaishali at Hajipur, in

Raghopur (Rustampur OP) PS Case No. 151 of 2020, subject to

the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (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 good

behaviour 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, 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.29757 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T