Dinesh Ray @ Dinesh Prasad Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3341 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2024 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Dinesh Ray @ Dinesh Prasad Ray Son of Late Parmesri Ray @ Prameshwar Ray Resident of village- Hetanpur ward no 11, P.S- Shahpur Patori, DistSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 468 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment Act), 2022.
3. It is alleged that the police on a tip-off trade of illicit wine conducted raid in the house of the petitioner; on noticing the police party two persons succeeded in fleeing away. The villagers disclosed the name of two persons. On search, total 40 litres country made liquor tied in the two white polythene bags were recovered from the farm.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the seizure list has contended that the admittedly alleged recovery has been made from a pumpkin
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2025(2) dt.15-02-2025 2/3 field situated at the distance of 20 yards of the house of the petitioner. There is no recovery from the conscious and constructive possession of the petitioner, moreover, the alleged recovered illicit wine is made from an open place which is easily accessible to anyone. The petitioner has fair and clean antecedent which clearly speaks that he had never been involved in such crime. The name of the petitioner and his son has been disclosed by the villagers. Referring to the aforesaid fact it is lastly contended that in such circumstances the bar provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not attract.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from an open field coupled with the fair antecedent of the petitioner and the lack of material which attract the bar provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; as also in view of the mandate of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2025(2) dt.15-02-2025 3/3 surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Excise)-02, Samastipur, in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 468 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J) Jyoti/- U T