Alleged of Possessing 350 Litres Foreign Liquor, the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing that the property of recovery of the same was not his and Section 76(2) of the act shall not be applied: High Court Of Patna

The Petitioner was alleged of having 350 Litres of Foreign Liquor. It was contended that the same was being recovered from other’s property and hence the current petitioner shall not be held liable. The court granted bail to the petitioner after considering all facts and circumstances. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Dipak Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35557 of 2020].

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a), 36,38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It was alleged that the petitioners on seeing the police coming escaped and from the spot around 350 Litres of Foreign Liquor was recovered and were informed by the villagers of more such trades with others as well. 

The Learned Counsel of Petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents also it wasn’t the property of his from where the liquor has been recovered. the petitioner was just a partner with another petitioner and that it was another petitioner’s bamboo clump from where the proof has been recovered. it was prayed that section 76(2) of the act shall not be applied to the present case.

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it was not controverted about the recovery from the bamboo clump of others. But it shall also be not ignored that the villager took the name of the petitioner for being involved in such trade. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”…. 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.” The pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner and the application was disposed of on said terms.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat