Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79734 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2023 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/O Dinesh Singh @ Lalbabu Singh R/O Village- Tilaktajpur, P.S- Runni Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Uday Prakash Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023 dated 27.05.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a), 32(1)(2), 36 and 41(1)(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 2689.5 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the three different vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicles. Local Chowkidar disclosed the name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79734 of 2024(2) dt.18-02-2025 2/3 petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. 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.
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 nature of allegation against the petitioner, 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79734 of 2024(2) dt.18-02-2025 3/3 Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further 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 is liable to be cancelled.
7. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T