Sunil Bhardwaj @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Bhardwaj, seeks bail in a case registered under sections 30(a), 33, 41, and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The prosecution alleges recovery of 8000 litres of spirit from a truck, leading to the apprehension of the driver and khalasi. These apprehended individuals allegedly disclosed the petitioner's name as an associate. The petitioner was not arrested at the scene, nor was any incriminating article recovered from him. He claims innocence, stating he is not named in the FIR and has no connection to the recovery or occurrence. He asserts that Pristine Distilleries, a registered company where he is the signatory authority, is authorized for spirit manufacturing and pays excise duty. He also notes that a similarly situated co-accused was granted bail.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The Court noted that the petitioner was not arrested on the spot and no incriminating article was recovered from his possession. Furthermore, the petitioner's association with Pristine Distilleries, a registered company authorized for manufacturing spirit and paying excise duty, was considered. The fact that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench also weighed in the petitioner's favor. The Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail, emphasizing the lack of direct involvement or recovery from the petitioner. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disclosure statement of apprehended co-accused, implicating the petitioner who was not arrested on the spot and from whom no recovery was made, has evidentiary value for denying bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act? 2. Whether the petitioner, being the signatory authority of a registered company authorized for spirit manufacturing and paying excise duty, is entitled to bail, especially when other similarly situated individuals have been granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent and not named in the FIR. He contended that the disclosure statement of the apprehended co-accused has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, as he was neither arrested on the spot nor was any incriminating article recovered from his possession. He further submitted that Pristine Distilleries, where he is the signatory authority, is a registered company authorized for manufacturing spirit and liquor and pays regular excise duty. He also pointed out that a similarly situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned APP appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail.