Putus Yadav @ Putus Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30722 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2024 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.
Putus Yadav @ Putus Kumar Son Of Sunil Yadav Resident Of Village - Kayampur, P.S. - Rahui, District - Nalanda 2.
Arjun Yadav Son Of Late Sitaram Yadav Resident Of Village - Kayampur, P.S. - Rahui, District - Nalanda 3.
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Son Of Awadhesh Yadav Resident Of Village - Kayampur, P.S. - Rahui, District - Nalanda 4.
Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Son Of Brijnandan Yadav Resident Of Village - Kayampur, P.S. - Rahui, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 77 of 2024 dated 11.02.2024 for the offence/s punishable u/s 30(a) (c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 40 litres of illicit country made liquor and some apparatus used for making liquor were recovered near Khandha, vill- Kayampur.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30722 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 2/3 case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The recovery was made from an open place that is accessible to anyone. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged recovery. Local people disclosed the name of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1, 3 and 4 have no criminal antecedent and the petitioner no. 2 has one criminal case as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. Learned counsel has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners. Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar 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 petitioners 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 material available on the record, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30722 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 3/3 learned court concerned, Nalanda at Biharsarif in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 77 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) guddukr/- U T