Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20080/2020dismissed

Jeevan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-09Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20080 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2018 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== JEEVAN RAY Son of Uday Ray Resident of Village - Dedoor, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 09-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof. Learned counsel for the State states that he has no objection in this regard and the matter be taken up on merits in view of the stated urgency.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Special Case No. 9171 of 2018 arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 490 of 2018 having earlier been rejected by order dated 25.03.2019 in Cr. Misc. No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20080 of 2020(3) dt.09-09-2020 2/2 16319 of 2019 for the offence alleged under Sections 30(a)(c) (d)/34/36 of the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act').

3. This Court in its order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16319 of 2019, has already expressed the view that an application for anticipatory bail for the offences under the Prohibition and Excise Act is not maintainable.

4. This Court sees no reason to take a different view in the matter. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.

5. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T