Mithilesh Devi @ Kailashiya Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71132 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-543 Year-2021 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mithilesh Devi @ Kailashiya Devi Wife Of Nagendra Ray R/O VillageBedaul, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-01-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State through videoconferencing. The Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable u/s 30A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

As per the prosecution case, on seeing the police three person fled away leaving motorcycle and one bottle of English wine was recovered from the said motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71132 of 2022(2) dt.13-01-2023 2/3 petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The said motorcycle was not driven by the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady. Learned counsel has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner. 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.

Learned S.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. 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 her arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71132 of 2022(2) dt.13-01-2023 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, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 543 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T