Yogendra Das @ Jitu v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 3 26-06-2024
#1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
#2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case.
#4. Allegation is of recovery of 20 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner.
#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is further submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35698 of 2024(3) dt.26-06-2024 such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge.
#6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
#7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 167 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
#8. However, the learned trial court, before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner, shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.