Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tekari Panchanpur O.P. P.S. Case No. 678 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022 of the offences punishable u/s 413 of I.P.C. and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2018.

¶17

3. As per the prosecution case, total 125 litres of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the Auto.

¶18

4. 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 name of the petitioner has

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28515 of 2024(2) dt.22-04-2024 2/3

¶20

transpired in this case only on the basis of owner of the said vehicle but the same was not being driven by him at the time of the alleged recovery. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. 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.

¶21

5. Learned A.P.P. 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.

¶22

6. 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.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28515 of 2024(2) dt.22-04-2024 3/3

¶24

20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Gaya in connection with Tekari Panchanpur O.P. P.S. Case No. 678 of 2022 subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

7. This application stands allowed.

¶26

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶27

Jyoti/-

¶28

U T

Sudhir Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar 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

Abhay Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Yogendra Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Sharwan Yadav @ Sharwan Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Wasim Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar