Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sujit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36923 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2020 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sujit Kumar, aged about 32 years, male, Son of Late
Suresh Sao @ Suresh Sharma, Resident of Village- Parsa, P.S.- Naubatpur,
Distt- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2021
Heard Mr. Vijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the
'APP') for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Special
Case No. 4460 of 2020 arising out of Naubatpur PS Case No.
368 of 2020 dated 17.07.2020, instituted under Sections
30(a)/41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. The allegation against the petitioner, who is not
named in the FIR, is that the co-accused from whose house
recovery was made, has stated that the petitioner worked with
him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36923 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
the liquor was recovered from a Scorpio vehicle and the house
of co-accused, but neither the petitioner was caught at the spot
nor the Scorpio belongs to him nor the house was his and only
because the owner of the house who was arrested has taken the
name of the petitioner that he was also with him in the business
of liquor, he has been made accused and arrested. Learned
counsel submitted that besides having no criminal antecedent,
he is also a witness on the seizure list. It was submitted that
because the petitioner was a witness on the seizure list, to take
revenge, the co-accused has taken his name. Learned counsel
submitted that though in the order of the Court below it has
come that the petitioner has another case under the Act against
him but he has specifically stated at paragraph no. 7 of his
application that such is error of record. It was submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2020.
5. Learned APP submitted that the arrested person has
taken the name of the petitioner that he was also in partnership
with him in the business of liquor.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the
petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36923 of 2020 dt.02-02-2021
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge,
Excise Act, Patna in Special Case No. 4460 of 2020 arising out
of Naubatpur PS Case No. 368 of 2020, subject to the
conditions (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.
7. The application stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
