Pintu Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh @ Rangeela v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- Narhiya District- Madhubani ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh @ Rangeela S/o Siya Singh R/O VillageKokodha, P.S.- Sakatpur, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Narahiya P.S. Case No. 03/2025 dated 10.01.2025 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Sections 274 and 275 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 432 litres of illicit Nepali country-made liquor was recovered from the Tata 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 three criminal antecedents as stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52516 of 2025(2) dt.08-08-2025 2/3 in para 3 of the bail petition. As per para. 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. The other co-accused person has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15388/2025. 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.
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.52516 of 2025(2) dt.08-08-2025 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, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with Narahiya P.S. Case No. 03/2025, subject to conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, with further condition:- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
7. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T