Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48109/2021dismissed

Karu Mallah @ Avinash Mallah v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-18Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48109 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ====================================================== KARU MALLAH @ AVINASH MALLAH Son of Tezan Mallah @ Surjdeo Mallah Resident of Village - Baiju Bigha, Tola Mallah Toil, P.S.- Gurua, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment), 2018, registered in connection with Excise Case No. 162 of 2021.

Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 makes an explicit embargo on entertaining the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48109 of 2021(2) dt.18-05-2022 2/2 Since the provision of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable in respect of offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, as such, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable.

If the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the court below, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order. The learned court below may also take notice of the fact that liquor was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather it was recovered from a bush and the petitioner is a person of clean antecedents.

Office shall ensure that all the defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T