Rajan Kumar Jha @ Rajan Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6944 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2023 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Rajan Kumar Jha @ Rajan Jha Son Of Virendra Jha R/O Village Harpur Alloth Ps Musrighrari District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rabindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 408/2023 dated 07.09.2023 for the offences punishable u/ss 272, 273 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 36, 37, 41 (1)(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 177.450 litres of illicit foreign made liquor was recovered from three different vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has three criminal antecedent as stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6944 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/3 at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicles. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. 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 A.P.P. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6944 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 408/2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T