Bal Kumar Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19992 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== BAL KUMAR CHAUDHARI Son of Late Mahendra Chaudhari Resident of Village-Belhi, P.S.-Kishunpur, District-Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2024, dated 09.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 38(i), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, later on vide amendment dated 10.01.2024, Sections 38(i), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 were removed by the police.
3. As per prosecution case, total 1984.230 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the Hywa Truck, Bolero and Pick up Van.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19992 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 2/3 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the apprehended co-accused person. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the seized vehicle. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence 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 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19992 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 3/3 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 Raghopur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2024, 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