HIRDESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120(B), 273
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 ss. 30(a), 31, 38(i)(ii), 41(i)(ii), 47
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, in connection with Dehari Town P.S. Case No.…
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP ORAL ORDER 2 04-09-2023 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is in custody in connection with Dehari Town P.S. Case No. 831 of 2018 for the offence under sections 273, 120(B),34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(a), 38(i)(ii), 41(i)(ii), 31, 47 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 lodged on 21.09.2018 by the informant, Naradmuni Singh.
As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted a Truck and recovered/seized 4948.2 liters foreign liquor and the occupants were arrested which followed the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner of the vehicle, nothing to do with the alleged recovery and the Truck was being used by the driver, moving from one destination to other and he has already suffered by being in custody since 23.04.2023 (as stated in paragraph 15 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58468 of 2023(2) dt.04-09-2023 the petition).
Further, without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.
Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail stating that in 2018 matter, he has now knocked the doors of this Court only after he was arrested and did not surrender.
Taking into account the fact that he is the owner of the Truck, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession, is in custody since 23.04.2023 and do not have criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be paid to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.
Operative part
Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, in connection with Dehari Town P.S. Case No. 831 of 2018 subject to the following conditions: (i) one of the bailor should be the family member of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58468 of 2023(2) dt.04-09-2023 the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for six months to mark his attendance; (iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is allowed. kiran/- U T (Rajiv Roy, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 120(B), 273; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — ss. 30(a), 31, 38(i)(ii), 41(i)(ii), 47.
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.