Patna High Court – Orders
Jitan Sada @ Jiten Sada @ Jatan Sada vs The State Of Bihar on 16 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35649 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2025 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul
======================================================
Jitan Sada @ Jiten Sada @ Jatan Sada S/O Baya Sada @ Baua Lal Sada @
Baua Sada Resident of village - Parmanandpur, Ward No. 04, Police Station -
Karjain, Dist.- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, APP-125
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2025
Heard Mr. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Karjain P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025, F.I.R dated
13.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section
30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Recovery is of 48 liters of Nepali Dilwale Sofi
liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although the recovery has been made from the house of the
petitioner but there is non-compliance of Section 100 of
Cr.P.C./Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35649 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2025
2/4
He further submits that apart from that the petitioner is not the
exclusive owner of the house in question rather the house in
question is the joint house property of the petitioner. He further
submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There
is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for
recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever, would be made
out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the
pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable and submits that the
petitioner is named in the F.I.R and apart from that the petitioner
carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but
fairly submits on the basis of Paragraph 3 of the bail petition
that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35649 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2025
3/4
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the
recovery has been made from the joint house property of the
petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise, Court No. 2,
Supaul, in connection with Karjain P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35649 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2025
4/4ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U T