Santu Yadav @ Santu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21611 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2021 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

SANTU YADAV @ SANTU KUMAR SON OF GARIB YADAV R/ODHANKURWA, P.S.-SIKANDARA, DISTT.-JAMUI 2.

SHAMBHU KUMAR SON OF RAMVILASH YADAV R/ODHANKURWA, P.S.-SIKANDARA, DISTT.-JAMUI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dipak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sikandara P.S. Case No. 194 of 2021, dated 18.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per prosecution case, total 25 litres of illicit country made liquor, 1400 litres of fermented mahua and a liquor making equipment were recovered from the village Dhankubra Babu Aahar near paine.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21611 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/3 implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The local villagers disclosed the name of the petitioners. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners, hence no case is made out against the petitioners. 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 APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners 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 petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21611 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 3/3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Jamui in connection with Sikandara P.S. Case No. 194 of 2021, 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) Ranjeet/- U T