Ranjan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12087 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- Jaitpur District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar Yadav S/o- Brahmdev Ray @ Gagandeo Ray Resident of Village- Gopinath Dokda Gopinath Dokara PS- Saraiya, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Jaitpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 for the offence/s punishable u/s 272, 273 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 32(2), 32(3) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 261 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the Mahindra XUV-300 vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12087 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 2/3 the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. Local Chowkidar disclosed the name of the petitioner that after seeing the police the petitioner along with other co-accused persons succeeded in fleeing away. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition out of which the petitioner is on bail in two cases. Learned counsel has submitted that 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 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 material available on the record, let the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12087 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 3/3 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, Muzaffarpur in connection with Jaitpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition/s:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to cancelled. (ii) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) ajay/- U T