Shankar Ram @ Matuk Ram Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 27-06-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 416 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 for the offence punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, total 150 litres of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the bamboo orchard of Kailash Thakur.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26718 of 2024(2) dt.27-06-2024 2/3

¶19

recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The recovery was made from an open place that is accessible to anyone. Local people disclosed the name of the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged recovery. The coaccused has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13122 of 2024 by this Bench. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. Learned counsel has submitted that 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 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26718 of 2024(2) dt.27-06-2024 3/3

¶23

of the case as well as the material available on record, let the above named petitioners, 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 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 416 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

The application stands allowed.

¶25

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶26

annpurna/-

¶27

U T

Shankar Ram @ Matuk Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Ram @ Matuk Ram 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

Sankar Mishtri @ Sankar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Urmila Kumari @ Urmila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar @ Aditya Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bipin Mahto @ Bipin Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Ram Awatar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Kumar Mehta Vs The State of Bihar