Arun Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pronoti Singh ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 05-04-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gogri (Poura O.P.) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024, dated 02.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

As per prosecution case, total 20 litres of illicit country made liquor, liquor making apparatus and 50 litres of fermented mahua were recovered from the hut made of plastic.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner has no concern with

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23008 of 2024(2) dt.05-04-2024 2/3

¶18

the alleged recovery rather the recovery has been made from the hut of co-accused. Local people has disclosed the name of the petitioner. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089. The Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra) has held that an application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.

¶19

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act applies in this case.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23008 of 2024(2) dt.05-04-2024 3/3

¶22

like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Khagaria in connection with Gogri (Poura O.P.) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 , subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The application stands allowed.

¶24

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶25

Ranjeet/-

¶26

U T

Arun Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laddu Kumhar @ Laddu Kumar @ Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Rajmani Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Upendra Bhagat Vs the State of Bihar

Govind Bihari Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Rupesh Pandey @ Rupesh Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar