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

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Bhardwaj, seeks bail in a case registered for offenses under sections 272, 273, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 41, 47, and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The prosecution case involves the recovery of 14,967.25 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from a truck. The driver and khalasi of the truck were apprehended and disclosed the petitioner's name as an associate. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he has no connection to the recovery or the vehicle. He asserts that his name was disclosed by co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value, and no incriminating articles were recovered from him. He highlights that Pristine Distilleries, a registered company for which he is a signatory authority, is authorized for liquor manufacturing and holds a GST number. He also points out that a similarly situated co-accused was granted bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since January 30, 2023.

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 petitioner on bail. The Court did not delve into a detailed analysis of the legal provisions or the evidence presented, but rather based its decision on the overall circumstances. The reasoning appears to be influenced by the petitioner's submission that he is a signatory authority of a registered company authorized for liquor manufacturing, the lack of direct recovery from his person, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of recovery of illicit liquor and his alleged involvement as disclosed by co-accused. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has no connection to the alleged recovery or the vehicle. He argues that the disclosure of his name by apprehended co-accused has no evidentiary value. He further states that no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, and the company he represents, Pristine Distilleries, is a licensed manufacturer of liquor and possesses a GST number. He also relies on the bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody since January 30, 2023. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, through the learned APP, opposed the prayer for bail.