Pintu Sao @ Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23384 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2023 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas ====================================================== Pintu Sao @ Yogendra Prasad Son of Late Durga Prasad @ Durga Sao Resident of Village- Uttar Patti, Tillouthu, P.S.- Tillouthu, Dist.- Rohtas (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jai Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tilouthu P.S Case No. 332/2023 dated 30.12.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 80 litres of illicit country-made liquor kept in plastic sack was recovered from the Sone Dhila.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has six criminal antecedents and he is on bail in all the aforesaid cases as stated in para 3 of the bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23384 of 2024(2) dt.08-04-2024 2/3 petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The recovery was from an open place which is accessible to anyone. 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.23384 of 2024(2) dt.08-04-2024 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Tilouthu P.S Case No. 332/2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition:- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

7. This application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T