Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Bhardwaj vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by two petitioners, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Bhardwaj and Doorjee Phun също Khirime, arising from PS Case No. 34 of 2021 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The prosecution case stems from the recovery of 2625 litres of spirit from a truck. The driver of the truck was apprehended and disclosed the names of the petitioners as his associates. The petitioners were not arrested at the scene, and no incriminating articles were recovered from their possession. They claim to be associated with Pristine Distilleries, a registered company authorized for spirit and liquor manufacturing, with Petitioner No. 1 being the signatory authority and Petitioner No. 2 being the proprietor. They also point to a similarly situated co-accused who was granted bail.

Held

The Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioners' claims of innocence, lack of direct recovery from their possession, the alleged lack of evidentiary value of the co-accused's disclosure, their association with a legitimate manufacturing entity, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail. The Court did not delve into a detailed analysis of the GST provisions or the specific excise duty aspects beyond the mention of the company's registration and authorization. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering their alleged involvement in the recovery of illicit spirit and their disclosure by a co-accused. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend they are innocent and have no connection to the alleged recovery or the place of occurrence. They argue that their names were disclosed by the apprehended co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value. They were not arrested on the spot, nor were any incriminating articles recovered from them. They highlight that Pristine Distilleries is a registered company authorized for manufacturing spirit and liquor, and they are key personnel within it. Furthermore, they cite a precedent where a similarly situated co-accused was granted bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the learned APP, opposed the prayer for bail.