Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32647 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Son of Dharamveer Singh Resident of village - Noorpur Veerpur, P.S. - Gautam Buddha Nagar, Dist.- Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anupam Prabhat Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 261/2023 dated 14.04.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 30(b), 32, 36, 41(1) and 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 2285 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the five different vehicles near the poultry farm of Sri Ram Mandal situated at Kacha road.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32647 of 2024(2) dt.19-07-2024 2/3 para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is the registered owner of one of the vehicles but the said vehicle was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of alleged recovery. 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. The other coaccused person has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76974/2023.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32647 of 2024(2) dt.19-07-2024 3/3 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 261/2023, 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