Veermani Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9464 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== VEERMANI KUMAR S/O- ARUN KUMAR R/O- NALANDA COLONY, P.S.- LAHERI DIST.- NALANDA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 519 of 2021, dated 11.01.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

3. As per prosecution case, total total 375 Ml. whisky was recovered from the co-accused Rabichandra Sudhanshu.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition in which all cases he is on bail. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9464 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 2/3 Rabichandra Sudhanshu. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089. The Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra) has held that an application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act applies in this case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Laheri

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9464 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 3/3 P.S. Case No. 519 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Ranjeet/- U T