Sunil Rai @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28858 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sunil Rai @ Sunil Kumar S/O Late Rajkumar Rai @ Late Ramkumar Rai R/O Village- Barka Chanda, P.S- Koilwar, Distt.- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shantam Shivam For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per prosecution case, total 10 litres of illicit country made liquor kept in a sack was recovered from the orchard of Dasai Rai.
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 antecedent in which he is on bail as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28858 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2024 2/3 petitioner was disclosed by local Chowkidar. The alleged recovery is made from the open field which is accessible to anyone. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28858 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2024 3/3 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 64 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) Ranjeet/- U T