The Patna High Court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, holding it not maintainable for offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16831 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-517 Year-2018 Thana- BARAUNI DistrictBegusarai
======================================================
Bablu Shani @ Brij Bhushan Shahni aged about 33 years, male, S/o Ram Badan Sahni, Resident of Village- Garhara (Near Kabristan), Ward No. 8, P.S.-Barauni (Garhara), District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16831 of 2019(2) dt.25-03-2019 2/4
their production by the police or on their surrender. The Registrar General was also directed to ensure that stamp reporters would not place applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. arising out of the cases under the Excise, Act, 2016 before the Bench as defect free cases henceforth.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16831 of 2019(2) dt.25-03-2019 3/4
from entertaining anticipatory bail petition in compliance of the order passed in Ashok Sahani’s case (supra). However, in paragraph-9 of the said order, it was specifically stated that the aspect of the vires/validity/repugnancy of Section 76(2) was not being considered as the same was already sub-judice before the Apex Court. The principles noticed by an earlier Division Bench in Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058 in the context of a similar bar to grant of anticipatory bail under the provisions of SC/ST Act in the light of the Apex Court’s decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 were taken note of in paragraph-13, which cast a duty upon the Court considering the pre-arrest bail of an accused, to look into the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint to find out whether ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out or not before exercising its judicial discretion under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. It was therefore held that the law regarding consideration of an application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused under an Act where there is a bar to grant of anticipatory bail, had been settled as such.
dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16831 of 2019(2) dt.25-03-2019 4/4
(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable when the accused is charged with offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Whether the petitioner can satisfy the court that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out based on the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of BiharApplied¶14
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶17
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of BiharRelied on¶18
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶21
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶21
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bablu Shani @ Brij Bhushan Shahni
The State of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
