Rahul @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3666 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2022 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rahul @ Rahul Kumar Son of Tara Patel R/o vill - Sugauli, P.S. - Sugauli, Distt. - Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed 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 Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 117 of 2022, dated 18.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 67 of IT Act and 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

4. As per prosecution case, the two co-accused persons were apprehended on the spot who were consuming liquor and 300 ml. of Nepali liquor was recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3666 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 2/3 apprehended co-accused persons. On being asked the coaccused Arun Das disclosed the name of the petitioner and the other co-accused persons who made video viral of firing viral.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition in which he is on bail. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the apprehended co-accused persons. No incriminating material 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.

6. Learned APP 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3666 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 3/3

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 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, Bettiah, East Champaran in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 117 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. The application stands allowed.

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