Pintu Ray @ Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73598 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-385 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Pintu Ray @ Pintu Kumar Son of Amar Mahto Resident of Village- Fulwariya Ferusa, Fharusa, P.O. and P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manisha Khushi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 385 of 2024 dated 25.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 30(a), 36, 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 783.90 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the pick-up van.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The apprehended coaccused person disclosed the name of the petitioner. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73598 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3 petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the seized vehicle. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. 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 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 material available on record, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73598 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Saran at Chapra in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 385 of 2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the condition:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T