Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83998 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2023 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Deepak Kumar S/O Jatan Mahto R/O Vill.- Hardiya, Barhm Asthan, P.SPupri, Dist- Sitamrahi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Uday Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 172 of 2023 dated 02.12.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 414 of the Indian Penal Code and u/ss 30(a) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 6423.345 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from one truck and four Bolero Pick-up vehicles.
4. 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 at para 3 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83998 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2025 2/3 bail petition. The petitioner is the owner of one of the seized vehicles and he has no concern with the alleged recovery. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83998 of 2024(2) dt.18-04-2025 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Sitamarhi in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 172 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T