Navin Kumar @ Navin Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed, directing the petitioner,
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 272, 273
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. The petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above named, to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63374 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date…
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP : : 2 30-08-2024 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for ORAL ORDER the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 48 of 2019, dated 24.06.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
As per the allegation, 5171.32 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a truck bearing registration No. NL-01G-
Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner was neither named in the First Information Report nor is any way connected with the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63374 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 alleged offence. The name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Pintu Kumar Singh and as, such, there is no legal basis for implication of the petitioner in the present case and there is no legal reason to curtail his liberty and, hence, the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further submits that the similarly situated co- accused Vinay Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
16.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. 48901 of 2019.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has earlier been made accused in three other cases.
It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no prima facie case is made out under the Excise Act and the present petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable.
Operative part
The petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above named, to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63374 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court-1, Samastipur, in connection with Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 48 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has given wrong statement regarding his criminal antecedent, Ld. Court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent despite his knowledge of the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. Court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed, directing the petitioner,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 272, 273; Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
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.