Ajay Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.187 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-817 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== AJAY MANJHI, Son of Pradeep Manjhi, R/V- Mansa, P.S- Mofassil, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Saxena,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-02-2023 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 through virtual court proceeding.

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, 5 litres country made mahua liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.187 of 2023(2) dt.03-02-2023 2/2 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 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. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the recovery is made from the house of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the court below concerned within six weeks from today and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider his prayer for regular bail on the same day without being prejudiced by this order. (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T