Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12595/2024bail granted

Lalit Kumar @ Lalit Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-29Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12595 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2022 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul ====================================================== Lalit Kumar @ Lalit Sah S/O Jitendra Prasad Sah R/O Village- Belha, P.SNarhiya (O.P), Distt.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case No. 232 of 2022 dated 26.11.2022 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 10.8 litres of illicit Nepali wine was recovered from the motorcycle of the coaccused, Bharat Chaupal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is not named in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12595 of 2024(2) dt.29-02-2024 2/3 F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused, Bharat Chaupal. The petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle and the same was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. Nothing 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12595 of 2024(2) dt.29-02-2024 3/3 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, Supaul in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case No. 232 of 2022, 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) Gautam/- U T