The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a commercial liquor seizure case after accepting his offer to contribute Rs 15,000 toward purchasing flower pots for the Muzaffarpur Civil Court premises.
Justice Rajiv Roy extended protection from arrest to the petitioner, Praveen Anand, on September 8, noting that investigators had recovered no contraband from his conscious possession. The court directed Anand to deposit the designated sum with the Muzaffarpur District Legal Services Authority through a State Bank of India demand draft.
The Bail Condition And Court Directives
The unusual monetary directive originated from an offer presented by Anand’s legal counsel during the hearing. The defense informed the bench that the petitioner was willing to deposit Rs 15,000 with the Muzaffarpur District Legal Services Authority specifically to finance flower pots across the local judgeship’s civil court campus.
Accepting the proposal, the high court incorporated the financial contribution into the conditions governing Anand’s pre-arrest bail. Under the order, Anand must surrender before the jurisdiction court within four weeks of receiving the ruling to secure formal release. He must furnish a personal bail bond of Rs 10,000 alongside two sureties of the same value. The bench mandated that one of the sureties must be a family member or relative whose identity must be verified through official government documentation, such as an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter identification, or driving licence.
Case Background And Legal Arguments
The prosecution stems from an incident on February 22, when officers attached to the Goriakothi police station in Siwan district intercepted an automobile and confiscated 112.320 litres of whisky. Authorities subsequently filed a First Information Report invoking the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
During arguments, Anand’s counsel cited a binding precedent established by a full bench of the Patna High Court regarding anticipatory bail petitions under the state’s stringent prohibition regime. That ruling held that statutory bars against pre-arrest bail do not preclude judicial intervention if the allegations contained in the initial police complaint fail to prima facie establish the charged offence against the petitioner.
Relying on this jurisprudence and the prosecution’s acknowledgement that no alcohol was found in Anand’s direct custody, the court ruled in favour of granting anticipatory relief.
Stringent Police Reporting And Conduct Rules
Alongside the financial contribution, the bench instituted rigorous oversight measures to guarantee Anand’s cooperation throughout the ongoing investigation and subsequent trial. The court ordered him to report to the local police station on a daily basis for the first month following his release. For the subsequent six months, he must appear before the station once every two weeks to log his presence.
Upon the conclusion of the seven-month reporting period, a compliance certificate must be submitted to the trial court. The high court clarified that any unexcused failure to adhere to the reporting schedule will grant the prosecution immediate liberty to initiate proceedings to cancel his bail.
The order also requires Anand to attend every trial hearing, warning that unexplained absences on two consecutive court dates could result in the revocation of his bond. The court further barred him from tampering with evidence, influencing or threatening witnesses, and committing any subsequent criminal offences, noting that any breach would leave him vulnerable to cancellation proceedings.
