Chinta Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79964 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2022 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Chinta Devi W/O Chandeshwar Sahni Resident Of Village- Barichak, P.S. Maker, Distt.- Saran At Chapra 2.
Vikash Sahni @ Vikesh Sahni S/O Chandeshwar Sahni Resident Of VillageBarichak, P.S. Maker, Distt.- Saran At Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajani Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 registered for the offence punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, total 50 litres of country-made illicit liquor has been recovered near the house of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79964 of 2023(2) dt.08-01-2024 2/3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The recovery is made from an open place which is accessible to anyone. The petitioner No. 1 is a lady. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners, 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.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79964 of 2023(2) dt.08-01-2024 3/3 petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Saran at Chapra in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. This application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T