Yogendra Manjhi @ Yogindra Manjhi @ Yugendra Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5413 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Yogendra Manjhi @ Yogindra Manjhi @ Yugendra Manjhi S/O Saman Manjhi @ Samman Manjhi R/O Village Gere Bhuintoli, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 232 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020 for the offences punishable u/ss 2(e), 3, 5, 13 Bihar Mahua Flower Act and u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 680 Kg. mahua flower was recovered from the hut adjacent to the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents in which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5413 of 2024(2) dt.16-02-2024 2/3 he is on bail as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner has transpired in this case merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out against the petitioner. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5413 of 2024(2) dt.16-02-2024 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, Gaya in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 232 of 2020, 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 prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T