Mohan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30370 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Mohan Prasad Son of Jaggu Bhagat Resident of Village- Ranipatti, P.SRajepur, Dist- East Champaran, Motihari 2.
Anil Kumar Son of Mohan Prasad Resident of Village- Ranipatti, P.SRajepur, Dist- East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024 dated 07.03.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 272 and 273 of the IPC and Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 372.960 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the two vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30370 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 2/3 antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners hence, no case is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30370 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 3/3 Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court concerned, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 48 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) atul/- U T