Hariom Kumar @ Hari Om Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69080 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Hariom Kumar @ Hari Om Kumar, S/o- Vishwanath Sharma, Resident of mohalla- Damriyahi Ghat, PS- Malsalami, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Excise (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 144/2024 dated 20.06.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 (in short 'Excise Act').

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant matter relates to the smuggling of 1056 litre of intoxicated material (beer) and the same was recovered from a Pick-Up vehicle which stands registered in the name of this petitioner, no doubt the petitioner is the registered owner of the alleged vehicle but he had no knowledge of the transportation of the alleged contraband by his vehicle and except the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69080 of 2024(3) dt.29-11-2024 2/2 being the owner of the said vehicle, there is no material against him, hence, the alleged offence of the Excise Act does not even prima facie attract against this petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is maintainable.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

5. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the case diary of this case. Admittedly, the alleged seized contraband in large quantity was found in the petitioner's vehicle, though he has taken the plea that he was not aware of the smuggling of the alleged Beer by his vehicle but the FIR goes to show that the apprehended driver could not give satisfactory answer regarding the ownership of the vehicle and the vehicle's engine number and chassis number were found scratched, so, in view of these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to form the opinion that the alleged offence does not even prima facie attract against this petitioner and moreover investigation is pending against him, so, considering the provision of section 76(2) of the Excise Act, this court finds petitioner's bail prayer to be not maintainable, so, it stands dismissed.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T