Rahul Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur PS Case No. 80 of 2021 dated 07.04.2021, instituted under Sections 120(b) of the

Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

The allegation against the petitioner is that when the police on prior information that liquor was being unloaded from a truck near Jokia Tandi

reached the poultry farm of co-accused Raushan Singh, they found a truck in the northern mango orchard as also a tractor and a trailer which was

loaded with cartons and upon search, 576 bottles of liquor was recovered from the truck whereas 525 bottles were recovered from the tractor and

trailer. It is alleged that from confidential sources, it transpired those four persons, including the petitioner, in conspiracy with each other were dealing

in storing and selling of illegal liquor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on suspicion based on information from some secret source, he has been made accused, but

he has no connection, either with the truck or tractor trailer or the mango orchard or the poultry farm. It was submitted that the petitioner has got no

other criminal antecedent. It was submitted that since there is nothing to connect the petitioner to the seized vehicles or the liquor, the bar of Section

76(2) of the Act would not be attracted in the present case.

Learned APP submitted that there is recovery of huge amount of liquor by the police. However, it was not controverted that the petitioner has been

named on the basis of secret information received by the police and that, as per the FIR itself, the poultry farm was owned by another co-accused and

not the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner being named as an

accused on the basis of information received from confidential sources and having no criminal antecedent as also the mango orchard and poultry farm

not belonging to the petitioner, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

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 Act, Begusarai in Bhagwanpur PS Case No. 80 of 2021, 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.

It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions 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.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.