Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Gulshan Kumar, are seeking regular bail in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1797 of 2023, lodged on October 12, 2023. The case involves the recovery of 3200 bottles of codeine syrup, each containing 100 ml, packed in 200 cartoons from a truck. The petitioners claim to be the driver and khalasi of the truck, transporting the material under a valid contractual invoice for which GST was paid. They assert innocence, stating they were unaware of the consignee's licensing status and were directed to deliver the goods from Ranchi to Patna for a recognized organization. Their antecedents are stated to be clean, and they have been in custody since October 13, 2023. The State opposes bail, highlighting the large quantity of recovered material and the classification of codeine as an NDPS substance.
Held
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Gulshan Kumar, subject to certain conditions. The primary condition for granting bail was that charges must be framed, if not already framed. The bail bonds were set at Rs. 2,00,000/- each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Excise Court No. 3, Gaya. The court also imposed several conditions, including one bailor being a family member providing official documents, regular appearance before the trial court, monthly appearance at the concerned police station for one year, refraining from inducing or threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not committing any further criminal offenses. The reasoning for granting bail, beyond the framing of charges, is not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but the conditions suggest a balancing of the need for the petitioners' presence in further proceedings with their right to liberty.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the quantity of alleged contraband recovered and the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend they are innocent employees (driver and khalasi) transporting goods under a valid invoice with GST paid. They claim ignorance of the consignee's license and were merely following instructions. They also highlight their clean antecedents and prolonged custody. They argue that the materials and truck are subject to confiscation under the Excise Act, implying their role is peripheral. State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, emphasizing the significant quantity of alleged excise material recovered. They point out that codeine has been classified under the NDPS category due to a 2016 amendment, suggesting a serious offense.
Sections Cited
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1797 of 2023, lodged on 12.10.2023, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. 3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the present petitioners under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, alleging therein that in total 3200 bottles, each containing 100 ml, kept in 200 packed cartoons which is codeine syrup has been recovered from the truck. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and 2/4 Khalasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that they are transporting the alleged excise material under the valid contractual invoice to paid the GST. The materials were not opened and were completely packed. Counsel submits that they were directed to deliver the said bag from Ranchi to Patna for a recognized organization. Counsel submits that they were completely unaware whether the said firms for which the petitioners who are employees of the said transport agency have the valid licence from the Collector to carry the materials. Counsel submits that the antecedent of the petitioners is clean. They are in custody since 13.10.2023. Counsel also submits that in accordance with Excise Act all the said materials and the truck are subject of confiscation. The petitioners are innocent driver and Khalasi.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that huge quantity of excise material have been recovered as codeine has been inserted in the N.D.P.S. category by virtue of amendment of 2016. 3/4
Upon the specific query of the Court that whether charges have been framed or not. Counsel for the petitioners submits that she is completely unaware about this fact that charges have been framed or not.
In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioners, above named, be granted bail only after framing of the charge, if not framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Lakhs) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Excise Court No.3, Gaya, in connection with Excise P.S. Case No.1797/20, subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his bona fide; (ii) The petitioners 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 their bail bonds by the Trial Court itself; (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every month for one year to mark attendance; (iv) The petitioners shall in no way try to induce or 4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; and (v) The petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
Mkr./- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.