Single Judge held that anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable for offences under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, referencing Supreme Court observations and prior Patna HC precedents, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner's anticipatory bail petition was dismissed holding it is not maintainable.
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.39267 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Samastipur
======================================================
ARBIND KUMAR SAH @ ARVIND KUMAR SAH, male, aged about 38 years, S/O Baleshwar Sah R/O Village Bakhari Buzurg, P.S. Musarigharari, Distt.Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39267 of 2019(2) dt.02-07-2019 2/4
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.39267 of 2019(2) dt.02-07-2019 3/4
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.
“We are not inclined to interfere with this Special Leave Petition.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39267 of 2019(2) dt.02-07-2019 4/4
remedy of regular bail, if so advised. The same be filed within two weeks’ from today.”
Ibrar//-
U T
(Vikash Jain, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable for offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Whether the petitioner satisfies the Court that ingredients of the alleged offence have not been made out in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Sahani vs. The State of BiharExplained¶15
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar vs. The State of BiharExplained¶16
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Barun Kumar vs. The State of BiharExplained¶17
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Bisheshwar Mishra vs. The State of BiharReferred¶19
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058
Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 · Who else cites this
Suresh Singh and Anr. vs. State of BiharExplained¶20
Suresh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar
Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of BiharReferred¶22
Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arbind Kumar Sah @ Arvind Kumar Sah
The State of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
