Mithu Rai @ Mithu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26951 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2024 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mithu Rai @ Mithu Kumar son of Gona Rai Resident of village- Murtuzapur Ps- Mahisaur Jandaha District- vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey(APP) ====================================================== 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 Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024 dated 30.11.2023 of the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2022.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 106.175 litres of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the courtyard in front of the house of the maternal uncle of the co-accused Anuj Raj,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has three criminal cases as stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26951 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2024 2/3 para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the apprehended person due to previous enmity. 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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26951 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2024 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Jandaha (Mahisaur) P.S. Case No. 36 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