Gaurav Kumar Ray vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4090 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28570 of 2021
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-881 Year-2020 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
======================================================

Gaurav Kumar Ray, aged about 24 years (Gender-M), Son of Ram Nath Mahto, resident of Village- Purani Bazar, P.S.- Kursela, District- Katihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-08-2021

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

03.08.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Khagaria (Muffasil) PS Case No. 881 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020,

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 is that he along

with six others was connected to the recovery of 1764 litres of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28570 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021

foreign liquor from a tanker which was caught by the police.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

only allegation that too on the version of the arrested driver

before the police is that the petitioner had called him to West

Bengal where the liquor was loaded and the petitioner had asked

him to take it to Begusarai and one Pradeep Singh, friend of the

petitioner, was said to accompany the tanker to Begusarai.

Learned counsel submitted that the allegation is totally false and

even if it is accepted that the petitioner had called the truck to

West Bengal, any loading of liquor in the State of West Bengal

not being an offence, he cannot be charged. It was further

submitted that the driver was responsible for recovery as it

cannot be expected that he would take such a big risk without

there being any other person who is directly connected with the

transaction and, thus, to save himself, the driver has implicated

the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has

neither any connection with the recovered liquor nor to the

seized tanker and has clean antecedent. Summing up his

arguments, learned counsel submitted that in such view of the

matter, the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act would not apply with

regard to maintainability of the present petition.

7. Learned APP submitted that the arrested driver of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28570 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021

the tanker from which recovery has been made has stated that

the petitioner had called him to West Bengal where liquor was

loaded.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as it

appears that the petitioner is said to be the person who got the

liquor loaded in West Bengal, that too, as disclosed by the

arrested truck driver before the police and does not have any

connection with the tanker from which recovery has been made

and has clean antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the

prayer for pre-arrest bail.

9. 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 Special Judge

(Excise), Khagaria in Khagaria (Muffasil) PS Case No. 881 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28570 of 2021 dt.13-08-2021

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.

10. 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.

11. The petition stands disposed of in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T