Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69234 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2022 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== MANOJ YADAV Son of Late Ram Deo Yadav R/V- Katharua, P.S- Amba, Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-02-2023 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

As per the prosecution case, total 448.8 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a Tempo bearing Registration No. BR-26-G-5888.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69234 of 2022(2) dt.25-02-2023 2/3 petitioner is the owner of the said tempo. At the time of occurrence the said tempo was being driven by the driver. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is accused in this case only because he is the owner of the said vehicle. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent 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.

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. 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69234 of 2022(2) dt.25-02-2023 3/3 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Amba P.S. Case No. 132 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and at any stage, if it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

The application stands allowed.

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