Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17492 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Singh S/O Surendra Ray R/O Village- Litiyahi, P.S.- Raghopur(Rustampur OP), Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashish Kumar Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 14/2024 dated 20.01.2024 for the offences punishable u/s 420 of the IPC and Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, 100 litres of countrymade liquor, 225 empty bottles, 16.50 litres of Indian made foreign liquor, plastic caps, 1088 pieces of sticker of imperial blue and two motorcycles were recovered from the banana orchard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17492 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 2/3 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is accused in 15 other criminal cases and he is on bail in all the aforesaid cases as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17492 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 3/3 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, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 14/2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further conditions:- (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 bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled. (ii). If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, his bail bonds are liable to be cancelled.

7. This application stands allowed.

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