Held that anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for offences under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016, as per consistent precedents including Ashok Sahani and Barun Kumar.
Petitioner directed to seek regular bail on surrender before the court below.
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.21943 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2018 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
GIRANI MANJHI S/o Madan Manjhi, Resident of Village-Rahimpur, P.SAkbarpur, District-Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21943 of 2019(2) dt.08-04-2019 2/3
to be considered of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 (Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar) which, by order dated 10.08.2017, held the earlier judgment per incuriam , apart from holding the provisions of Section 76(2) of the Excise Act, 2016 as void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The question whether the Registry could be restrained from entertaining anticipatory bail petitions as directed in Ashok Sahani’s case ( supra ), was referred to a larger Bench.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21943 of 2019(2) dt.08-04-2019 3/3
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.
9.The anticipatory bail petition accordingly stands
dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Chandran/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail petition is maintainable for offences under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is available for accused of offences under the Excise Act, 2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶15
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶16
Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 (Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar)
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶19
Cr. Misc. No. 42985 of 2017 (Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar)
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶19
Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of BiharApplied¶20
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶20
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 · Who else cites this
Girani Manjhi
The State of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
