Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69001 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2022 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son Of Surendra Shaw Resident Of Village- Khajuriya, P.S.- Bankebazar, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 70451 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2022 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Rupesh Kumar Son Of Janki Sao R/V- Khajuriya, P.S- Bankebazar, DistGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69001 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Javed Jafar Khan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 70451 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

As both these bail applications have cropped up from the same police station case number, hence, with consent of parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69001 of 2022(2) dt.12-01-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent, not named in the FIR and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioners rather 240 kilograms of Mahua flower is said to have been recovered from three different vehicles. He submits that there is violation of provision under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 bars the application of anticipatory bail contained under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the same is confirmed by Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (F.B.). Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Raushanganj (Bankebazar) P.S. Case No. 230 of 2022. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T