Kailash Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76746 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2019 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Kailash Sahni Son Of Raghunath Sahni Resident Of Village - Pilkhi Gajpatti, P.S. - Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-12-2023 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.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pear P.S. Case No. 239 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273 and 414 of the I.P.C and Sections 30(a), 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, total 9.81 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from the motorcycle.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76746 of 2023(2) dt.18-12-2023 2/3 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The petitioner is owner of the said vehicle but the said vehicle was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of occurrence. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76746 of 2023(2) dt.18-12-2023 3/3 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Muzaffarpur in connection with Pear P.S. Case No. 239 of 2019, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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