Bujun Rai @ Gujun Rai @ Shiv Jee Rai @ ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3825 Patna

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10243 of 2021
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2020 Thana- NANPUR District-Sitamarhi
======================================================

Bujun Rai @ Gujun Rai @ Shiv Jee Rai @ Sudhir Kumar, Male, aged about 45 years, Son of Kailash Rai, Resident of Village-Bahurar, Police Station- Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s    :       Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Vinod Sankar Modi, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-07-2021

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

26.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Sankar Modi, learned Additional

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

State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Nanpur PS Case No. 298 of 2020 dated 30.07.2020, instituted

under Sections 30/30(a)/38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10243 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the

police on information that the petitioner was keeping illicit wine

near the hut of co-villager Sikandar Das went to the spot, one

Anita Devi was caught and on search illicit wine totalling

13.560 litres was recovered and the arrested lady has stated that

the said wine was kept by the petitioner in her house.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is a co-villager of co-accused and due to village

politics, he has been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the

recovered wine not being from the premises owned by the

petitioner, there is nothing to connect the same to him, except

for a bald statement of co-accused, that too, made to save

herself, would not act as a bar under Section 76 (2) of the Act

with regard to maintainability of the present petition. It was

submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel submitted that he has also no connection with

co-accused Anita Devi who was caught and her husband

Sikandar Das and surprisingly the said Sikandar Das, who is the

owner of the house, has not been made accused.

7. Learned APP submitted that the co-accused has

stated that the wine recovered from her hut belonged to the

petitioner. However, it was not controverted that the recovery Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10243 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

has not been made from the premises owned by the petitioner.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 A.D.J.-II, Sitamarhi in Nanpur PS Case No. 298 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 10243 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021

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

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T