Partly allowed

Pravin Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jul 2019CR. MISC./44111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, the Patna High Court held that anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC were not maintainable for alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, by relying on Section 76(2) of the Act and Supreme Court precedent. The court dismissed four petitions and one was allowed to withdraw.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw anticipatory bail petition of petitioner no. 3 accorded; other anticipatory bail petitions dismissed as not maintainable.

Pravin Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44111 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2019 Thana- BHADAUR District-

¶3

Patna

¶4

======================================================

¶5

PRAVIN MAHTO, aged about 40 years, male, Son of Krishna Mahto Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Badaur, District- Patna

¶6

Maruan Mahto, aged about 38 years, male, Son of Krishna Mahto Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Badaur, District- Patna

¶7

Ashok Ram, aged about 35 years, male, Son of Dhano Ram Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Badaur, District- Patna

¶8

Ghan Shyam Ram, aged about 50 years, male, Son of Sato Mahto Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Badaur, District- Patna

¶9

Naresh Ram, aged about 58 years, male, Son of Late Sheodhari Ram Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Badaur, District- Patna

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 18-07-2019

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the

¶17

petitioner no. 3 has been arrested and as such the anticipatory bail petition has become infructuous and seeks permission to withdraw the same.

¶18

Permission is accorded. The anticipatory bail

¶19

petition of petitioner no. 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4

¶21

and 5 and learned APP for the State.

¶22

The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 apprehend their

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44111 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 2/5

¶24

arrest for the offences alleged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Prohibition Act, 2016’) registered in connection with Special Case No. 4335 of 2019 arising out of Badaur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2019.

¶25

At the very outset, this Court takes note of an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632 . After a detailed deliberation over the effect of Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act, 2016, it was categorically opined in paragraph-14 that the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. is not available to person accused of having committed an offence under the Prohibition Act, 2016. Certain guidelines (not exhaustive) were also laid out in paragraph-30, indicating circumstances where bail should normally 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.

¶26

The aforesaid order in Ashok Sahani’s case (supra) came 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 Prohibition 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.

¶27

By another judgment dated 03.10.2017 passed by a third co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 42985 of 2017 (Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar), the issue relating to

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44111 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 3/5

¶29

maintainability of anticipatory bail petitions in respect of offences under the Prohibition Act, 2016 came to be considered yet again. The decision in Manish Kumar’s case ( supra ) was found to have been passed in oversight of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as well as Section 4 of the Cr. P.C. which could not be placed before it. As such the decision in Ashok Sahani’s case ( supra ) was held to be binding on a coordinate Bench wherein it had been held that an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. cannot be maintained in cases of offences arising out of the Prohibition Act, 2016.

¶30

The reference to the Larger Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 ( Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar) was answered by the Division Bench in its order dated 06.11.2017 since reported in 2017(4) BLJ PHC-288 , opining that the 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 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

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44111 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 4/5

¶32

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.

¶33

It is relevant to take note that an order dated 14.02.2019 was passed by this Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 8719 of 2019 ( Nishikant Tiwary and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar ) rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail as not maintainable in view of Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act, 2016. The said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court giving rise to Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2324 of 2019 which, in a recent development, came to be dismissed on 11.03.2019, inter alia, with the following observations--

¶34

“We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

¶35

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶36

Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.

¶37

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.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 has also not been able to show that any material change on the question of maintainability has come about as a result of the recent judgment dated 17.05.2019 of a Full Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2019 ( Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar).

¶39

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 has not been able to satisfy this Court that looking to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the ingredients of the offences

¶40

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44111 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 5/5

¶41

alleged against the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have not been made out.

¶42

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the anticipatory bail petition in respect of offences alleged against the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 under the Prohibition Act, 2016 is not maintainable.

¶43

The anticipatory bail petition accordingly stands dismissed.

¶44

If the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 surrender and seek regular bail before the learned Court below the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law on the same day, without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order.

¶45

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶46

Ibrar//-

¶47

U T

Pravin Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar Through Sri Arun Kumar Singh, The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Water Resources De

Sharad Bharti and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar Through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna

Sunil Singh @ Soni @ Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Tannu Prasad @ Tannu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramnath Paswan Vs The State of Bihar