Dharmendra Mukhiya vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning for this decision appears to be based on the petitioner's submission that the illicit liquor and raw material were not recovered from his personal possession but from a house occupied by a large number of family members, coupled with his assertion of having no criminal antecedents and being a registered businessman with a GST number. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Excise Act, East Champaran. A specific condition for the verification of the petitioner's GST number was imposed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Dharmendra Mukhiya, apprehends arrest in connection with Excise Case No. 1030 of 2019, registered for offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2016. The case involves the recovery of 35 litres of country-made liquor and six quintals of 'Meetha' (likely a raw material for liquor). The petitioner claims no criminal antecedents and that the seized items were not recovered from his personal possession but from a house occupied by multiple family members. He asserts he is a businessman registered with a GST number and possesses relevant documentation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the recovery of liquor and raw material from a shared family residence and the absence of personal possession. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that nothing was recovered from his direct possession, and the seized items were found in a house shared by numerous family members. He emphasizes his status as a registered businessman with a GST number, implying legitimate business activities and no involvement in illegal liquor trade. He also highlights his lack of criminal antecedents. Revenue's arguments: The State (Opposite Party) has not recorded any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's claims.