Indrajeet Kumar @Ranjeet Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39814 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2024 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Indrajeet Kumar @Ranjeet Ray S/O Ram Janam Ray R/O Village Chakjalal Bajitpur, P.S. Tajpur(Halai O.P.), Distt- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Surya Roy For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in a case in connection with Patori P.S. Case No. 133 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024 for the offence/s punishable u/ss 272, 273 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 93 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the Scorpio.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39814 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 2/3 the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. The apprehended co-accused person disclosed the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. Learned counsel has submitted that 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 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. Similarly situated co-accused has already been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34154 of 2024.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39814 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 3/3 above named petitioner, in the event of his/her 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 Patori P.S. Case No. 133 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) guddukr/- U T