Sahil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20784 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2019 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== SAHIL KUMAR, S/o Nand Kishor Prasad, Resident of Nakhas Pind Karmalichack, P.S.- Bye-Pass, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 05-11-2020 The defect (s) as pointed out by the office be ignored. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Byepass P.S. Case No. 351/2019 registered for offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Prosecution case is that one Sohani Mishra was tenant in the house of petitioner and 130 litres of country made liquor was recovered from the room of aforesaid Sohani Mishra who disclosed that the petitioner had kept the aforesaid seized liquor for sale.

Admittedly, nothing was recovered either from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20784 of 2020(2) dt.05-11-2020 2/3 conscious possession of the petitioner or from the portion of the house, which was in possession of the petitioner. Para 3 of the petition goes to show that prior to registration of the case petitioner was not made accused in any case registered for the offences of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. No doubt, Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act prohibits to entertain the petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act but it has already been held by this Court that if the First Information Report prima facie does not disclose any offence of Excise Act, in that circumstance, the petition filed under Section 438 is maintainable.

In the present case, except the statement of coaccused, there appears to be nothing against the petitioner and mere disclosure made by co-accused is not sufficient to make out offence of Excise Act against the petitioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, in my view, this anticipatory bail is maintainable.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20784 of 2020(2) dt.05-11-2020 3/3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise, Patna, in connection with Byepass P.S. Case No. 351/2019, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) rakhi/- U T