The court granted pre-arrest bail based on the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the recovered liquor and his lack of criminal antecedent.

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 05.08.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bishwambharpur PS Case No. 86 of 2020 dated 15.06.2020, instituted under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

5. As per the FIR, the police at about 10.00 PM on 15.06.2020, when was conducting patrolling and raids, three motorcycles were seen coming towards them and on one motorcycle, two persons were riding, whereas, on the other two motorcycles only one person was driving the same and on seeing the police vehicle, all the four persons left their motorcycles and started fleeing away out of which two persons were apprehended, whereas, two others managed to escape. Thereafter, in the presence of two independent witnesses, the detained persons disclosed their identity as Om Prakash Yadav and Sheojee Yadav and Sheojee Yadav disclosed that the petitioner was the person, who was sitting behind him on his motorcycle, and the other person, who had fled away was Chand Mian. On search of the motorcycle of co-accused, Om Prakash Yadav, 45 litres of countrymade liquor, from the motorcycle of Sheojee Yadav, on which the petitioner is said to be riding, 34 litres of the said liquor and from the motorcycle driven by coaccused, Chand Mian, 54 litres of the said liquor were recovered. It is further alleged that on enquiry, the detained persons disclosed that they had purchased the liquor from Uttar Pradesh and all four of them were involved in the trade of liquor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not caught at the spot and only because of the name taken by the arrested co-accused, Sheojee Yadav, he has also been implicated. Learned counsel submitted that just a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner had publicly abused and insulted Sheojee Yadav for not returning Rs.5,000/- which he had taken as friendly loan in March, 2020, but was not returning the same on some pretext or the other and that is why, he has been falsely implicated. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Thus, it was contended that as there is nothing to connect the recovered liquor to the petitioner, the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act would not apply in the present case.

7. Learned APP submitted that the person, who was arrested, has stated that it was the petitioner, who was sitting behind him on the motorcycle and there is no reason to disbelieve him.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the fact that it is the statement of the arrested co-accused, before the police, being the only material to connect the petitioner to the recovery of liquor and he having no criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

9. 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Excise, Gopalganj, in Bishwambharpur PS Case No. 86 of 2020, 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 th