Pappu Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57956 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2024 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR RAM SON OF RAM DAYAL RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SOTHGAON (SAUTHGAON), P.S. - HARLAKHI, DISTRICT - MADHUBANI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 144/2024, G.R. No. 737/2024 dated 18.05.2024 registered for the offence/s punishable under sections 341, 324, 353, 272, 273 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 234 litres of illicit Nepali country made liquor and a motorcycle were recovered from the hut of the co-accused Upendra Yadav.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57956 of 2024(2) dt.27-09-2024 2/3 petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused person. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46408 of 2024. 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.57956 of 2024(2) dt.27-09-2024 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, Madhubani in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 144/2024, G.R. No. 737/2024, 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) Gautam/- U T