Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58835 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2024 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav S/O Late Jhingur Yadav R/O VillageSimra, P.S- Sadar Mabbi O.P., P.O- Lalsahpur, Distt.- Darbhanga, Bihar846005, however, in FIR wrong address of petitioner has been mentioned as Village- Lalsahpur, P.S- Sadar Mabbi O.P., Distt.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== 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 arrest in connection with Darbhanga Sadar (Bhalpatti O.P) P.S Case No. 145/2024 dated 15.03.2024 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 138 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The other co-accused persons have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58835 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 2/3 already been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 09.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48414/2024. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle. 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 arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58835 of 2024(2) dt.30-08-2024 3/3 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, Darbhanga in connection with Darbhanga Sadar (Bhalpatti O.P) P.S Case No. 145/2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T