Indra Mohan Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5297 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -276 Year- 2016 Thana -SAKRA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Indra Mohan Jha, S/o Late Satyadeo Jha, Resident of VillageDharmagatpur, P.S.-Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2017 Heard the parties.

The petitioner has come before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sakra P. S. Case no. 276 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 with respect to the occurrence dated 11.10.2016. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in this case the occurrence took place on 11.10.2016 but the F.I.R. has been sent to the Magistrate on 17.10.2016. However, it has been submitted that seizure has not been made from the house of the petitioner rather it has been made from a bush behind the house of the petitioner and petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Seizure list witnesses have filed an affidavit in support of the fact

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5297 of 2017 (2) dt.15-02-2017 2/2 that nothing was recovered in their presence and their signatures were taken on a blank paper.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, so far Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is concerned, that has been promulgated on 2.11.2016 and this case is dated11.10.2016. So far as submission of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate is concerned, that has been sent at the time of trial and all other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that seizure was not made from the house of the petitioner rather from the bush behind the house of the petitioner and seizure list witnesses have filed an affidavit in support of the fact that nothing was recovered in their presence and their signatures were taken on a blank paper, this Court has no jurisdiction to look into an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is clearly barred under Section 76 (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and, as such, the petitioner shall surrender and make prayer for regular bail and raise all the above submissions before the court concerned. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sudip/- U T