Dharam Raj Ram @ Dharam Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3187 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Dharam Raj Ram @ Dharam Raj Kumar Son Of Balmiki Ram Resident Of Village- Surjicha, Ps- Surajgarha, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Govt. Official Complaint Case No. 31C2/2021 bearing P.R. No. 66 dated 19.02.2021 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a), 32, 41, 56(a) and 56(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 60 litres of illicit mahua liquor was recovered from the motorcycle and the apprehended person disclosed the name 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 one criminal antecedent as stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3187 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 2/3 para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the apprehended person. The petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle and the same was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of the alleged recovery. 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3187 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 3/3 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 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Lakhisarai in connection with Govt. Official Complaint Case No. 31C2/2021 bearing P.R. No. 66, 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