Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26602 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2021 Thana- LAKHNAUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav son of Jagdish Yadav Vill- Navtol Gumti, Purani Pokhar,PsLakhnaur RSOP, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Lakhnaur P.S. (R.S.O.P.) Case No. 175 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1792/2021, for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per prosecution case, total 12 litres of illicit Nepali country made liquor was recovered from the house of the co-accused Suvendra Yadav.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26602 of 2024(2) dt.16-04-2024 2/3 para 3 of the bail petition. Mahal Chowkidar disclosed the name of the petitioner due to previous enmity. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out against the petitioner. 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 APP 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 her 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 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26602 of 2024(2) dt.16-04-2024 3/3 concerned, Madhubani in connection with Lakhnaur P.S. (R.S.O.P.) Case No. 175 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1792/2021, 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) Ranjeet/- U T