Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63730/2021dismissed

Kailash Yadav @ Kailash Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-19Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63730 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2021 Thana- RAIYAM District- Darbhanga ====================================================== KAILASH YADAV @ KAILASH KUMAR YADAV S/o Munshi Yadav Resident of Village- Koyalasthan, P.S.- Keoti, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Raiyam P.S. Case No. 07 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

So far as the maintainability of the bail petition is concerned, 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.63730 of 2021(2) dt.19-05-2022 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 before the court below and makes a prayer for regular bail, that shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. The learned court below may take notice of the fact that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he is a person of clean antecedent and he is only owner of the vehicle wherefrom the liquor was recovered. , Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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