Mahesh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28564 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Mahesh Sharma S/O Late Mahadev Sharma R/O Village- Kajri Buzurg, P.SJandaha, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mahendra Pratap, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== 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 Samastipur Muffasuil P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 dated 15.01.2021 for the offences punishable u/ss 30(a) and 32(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 1040.4 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the pick-up vehicle.

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 para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle but the same was not being driven by the petitioner at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28564 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2024 2/3 the time of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. Nothing 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 material available on the record, 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 amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28564 of 2024(2) dt.20-04-2024 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 30 of 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) Gautam/- U T