The Patna High Court considered a petition for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons charged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as Section 76(2) of the Act specifically bars anticipatory bail,
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.29476 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2018 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : None For the Opposite Party : APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
3 25-07-2019
As none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was passed over for a few cases. However on repeat call, the petitioners were again not represented.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29476 of 2019(3) dt.25-07-2019 2/4
be granted to the accused persons on 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 Prohibition, Act, 2016 before the Bench as defect free cases henceforth.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29476 of 2019(3) dt.25-07-2019 3/4
Registry could not be restrained 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 subjudice 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.
“We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29476 of 2019(3) dt.25-07-2019 4/4
The petitioners are directed to surrender before the appropriate Court immediately and upon such surrender, if they file an application for bail, the said Court after hearing the parties on the application for bail, consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and in accordance with law.”
dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J)
BT/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable in a case involving offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 where Section 76(2) of the said Act bars such
Whether the bar under Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act, 2016 is valid in light of Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether the Registry could be restrained from entertaining anticipatory bail petitions in matters concerning the Prohibition Act, 2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶16
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶19
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar (supra)
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶20
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶23
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶23
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 · Who else cites this
Nishikant Tiwary and Anr. Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶24
Nishikant Tiwary and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 8719 of 2019
Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶30
Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2019
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chunkeshwar Soren @ Nunkeswar Soren @ Nerkeshwar Soren
Kameshwar Soren @ Kameshwar @ Nunkeshwar Soren
State of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
