Pappu Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18765 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2020 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Pappu Mukhiya S/O Shyam Mukhiya R/O Village- Parigama, Ward No. 2, P.S- Choraut, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 411 of 2020 dated 30.12.2020 for the offence/s punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 243 litres of Nepali Gaurabh Saufi liquor was recovered near Samudayik Madarsa.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the apprehended coaccused person namely, Ram Lagan Mukhiya. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18765 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 2/3 conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79885/2023. 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 enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18765 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Sitamarhi in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 411 of 2020, 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) guddukr/- U T