Patna High Court
Bhishan @ Bibhishan Yadav @ ... vs The State Of Bihar on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40753 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2020 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
1. Bhishan @ Bibhishan Yadav @ Bhibhishan Kumar, aged about 35 years,
Male.
2. Binoy Yadav @ Binay Yadav, aged about 38 years, Male
Both Sons of Yogi Yadav @ Yogendra Yadav.
Both resident of village- Gyan Tol, PS- Sahebpur Kamal, District-
Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-08-2021
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 petitioners on
06.08.2021, which was allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with S
Kamal PS Case No. 369 of 2020 dated 02.12.2020, instituted
under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40753 of 2021 dt.16-08-2021
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Act').
5. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the
informant was conducting raid, he received secret information that
in the Bahiyar of co-accused Pankaj Yadav, he along with the
petitioners were manufacturing illegal countrymade liquor and
when they reached the spot, 3-4 persons were seen running away
from the Bahiyar of co-accused Pankaj Yadav, who could not be
caught and from the field of co-accused Pankaj Yadav in a plastic
can, 15 litres of countrymade liquor; two large aluminum utensils;
two Indane gas cylinders; two pieces of iron burner and equipment
to manufacture countrymade liquor etc. were recovered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
though they have been named as the persons who along with co-
accused Pankaj Yadav were manufacturing countrymade liqour
but nothing has been recovered from their premises and they are
not connected with Pankaj Yadav from whose field such recovery
has been made. It was submitted that there has not been
identification of the petitioners as the persons who had run away
from the spot as there are no witnesses and even in the FIR it has
not been stated that the petitioners were identified or recognized
by any person and it is only stated that the raiding police party had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40753 of 2021 dt.16-08-2021
received secret information that the petitioners along with Pankaj
Yadav were manufacturing countrymade liquor. It was submitted
that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. Summing
up his arguments, learned counsel submitted that there being
nothing to connect the petitioners to the recovered countrymade
liquor or the equipment to manufacture the same, the bar of
Section 76(2) of the Act would not apply in the present case.
7. Learned APP submitted that the police had prior
information with regard to involvement of the petitioners.
However, it was not controverted that as per the FIR, the
petitioners have not been identified on the spot and also that the
place from which recovery has been made is that of co-accused
Pankay Yadav and not the petitioners.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not been
identified by any person as the persons who had run away when
the police had reached the spot as also that recovery has not been
made from their premises and further that they have no other
criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for
pre-arrest bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40753 of 2021 dt.16-08-2021
9. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before
the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners be
released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-
(twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Excise Act,
Begusarai in S Kamal PS Case No. 369 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 petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the
bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the
petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall also give an
undertaking to the Court that they 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 their bail bonds. The
petitioners 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 their bail bonds.
10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any
violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40753 of 2021 dt.16-08-2021
the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate
action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
