Jay Ram Prasad @ Jairam Raut v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26843 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Jay Ram Prasad @ Jairam Raut S/o Ram Kumar Raut R/o vill - Pure, P.S. - Lakhnaur, Distt. - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Excise JhanJharpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024 of the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 250.230 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the hut of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has one criminal case as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. It is submitted that the said hut is situated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26843 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2024 2/3 an open place which is without door. The recovery has been made from an open place which is accessible to anyone. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the local people. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26843 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2024 3/3 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Madhubani, in connection with Excise JhanJharpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. This application stands allowed.

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