Vipin Kumar Rai @ Bipin Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80258 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-473 Year-2022 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vipin Kumar Rai @ Bipin Kumar Ray Son Of Suresh Ray Resident Of Village- Rajwara Ward No. 06, Chak Pahar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-01-2024 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 Tajpur P.S. Case No. 473 of 2022 dated 07.10.2022 for the offences punishable u/ss 30(a), 41(1) and 41(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, total 48.225 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from the Bolero car.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80258 of 2023(2) dt.09-01-2024 2/3 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 alleged 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 arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80258 of 2023(2) dt.09-01-2024 3/3 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, Samastipur in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 473 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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