Allowed¶66

Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jan 2024CR. MISC./4064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; Section 76(2) bar; illicit liquor 4205.5 litres truck pickup van; Mahua P.S. Case No. 724 of 2023 Vaishali; IPC 414 420 read with 34; Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 Full Bench; bail bond Rs. 20,000 two sureties; section 438(2) CrPC; Hajipur court below; Chandra Prakash Singh; 24-01-2024

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all five petitioners upon arrest/surrender within six weeks, on bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to section 438(2) CrPC conditions, with a mandatory personal-appearance condition for Raju Rai @ Raju Kumar and Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray. ¶66

Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the five petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 724 of 2023 (offences under Sections 414, 420 read with 34 IPC and Sections 30(a), 32(ii), 34(ii), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, arising from recovery of 4205.5 litres of illicit liquor), should be enlarged on anticipatory bail notwithstanding the State's submission that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Excise Act applies.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

All the above-named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender within six weeks, were enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 724 of 2023 on furnishing a bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Hajipur at Vaishali, subject to conditions under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶64

Key takeaways

Additional condition imposed: the petitioners named as Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar and Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray are directed to remain physically present before the learned court below on each and every date, and on absence on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause their bail bonds are liable to be cancelled.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Prakash Singh, J.), oral order dated 24-01-2024, allowed five connected anticipatory bail applications (Crl. Misc. Nos. 3945, 3977, 4035, 4064 and 5574 of 2024) of Mahesh Ray, Raju Rai @ Raju Kumar, Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray, Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar and Sumit Singh @ Chandan, each apprehending arrest in Mahua P.S. Case No. 724 of 2023 dated 07.11.2023, District Vaishali, where 4205.5 litres of illicit liquor was allegedly recovered from a truck and a pickup van, attracting Sections 414 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 30(a), 32(ii), 34(ii) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Counsel relied on the Full Bench ruling in Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (anticipatory bail maintainable in Excise Act cases despite the Section 76(2) bar where no offence under that provision emerges from the FIR); the State contended the bar applied. The court, considering the facts and nature of allegations, enlarged all five petitioners on anticipatory bail upon arrest/surrender within six weeks on a bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, satisfying the learned court at Hajipur (Vaishali), subject to section 438(2) CrPC conditions, and additionally required Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar and Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray to attend in person on every date, non-attendance on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause rendering their bail bonds liable to cancellation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3945 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Mahesh Ray, Male, aged about 46 years, S/O Ram Lagan Ray, resident of Village- Mahua Ram Ray, P.S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3977 of 2024

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶13

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

¶14

Raju Rai @ Raju Kumar, aged about 27 years (male), S/o- Suresh Rai Resident of Village-Madhaul, P.S- Mahua Dist- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶19

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

¶20

with

¶21

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4035 of 2024

¶22

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶23

====================================================== Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray, (male), aged about 48 years, S/O Ram Lagan Ray Village- Mahua Ram Ray, P.S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶28

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

¶29

with

¶30

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4064 of 2024

¶31

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶32

====================================================== Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar, (male), aged about 28 years, S/O Raju Ray @ Rajdev Rai, resident of Village- Mahua Ram Ray (Mahua Singh Ray), PS. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3945 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 2/5

¶37

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶38

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

¶39

with

¶40

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5574 of 2024

¶41

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶42

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

¶43

Sumit Singh @ Chandan @ Sumit Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh, aged about 32 years, (male), Son of Umesh Singh R/o vill - Mahua, P.S. - Mahua, Distt. - Vaishali

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶48

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3945 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, A.P.P. (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3977 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4035 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, A.P.P. (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4064 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5574 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramadit, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶49

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

2 24-01-2024

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted

¶53

to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶54

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶55

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶56

3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

¶57

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3945 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 3/5

¶58

connection with Mahua P.S Case No. 724 of 2023 dated 07.11.2023 for the offences punishable u/ss 414, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a), 32(ii), 34(ii), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶59

4. As per the prosecution case, total 4205.5 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a truck and a pickup van.

¶60

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are neither the owner nor the driver the said vehicles. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused disclosed the name of the petitioners. The petitioner namely, Mahesh Ray has two criminal antecedents, the petitioner namely, Raju Rai @ Raju Kumar has five criminal antecedents, the petitioner namely, Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray has seven criminal antecedents, the petitioner namely, Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar has four criminal antecedents where the petitioner namely, Sumit Singh @ Chandan has two criminal antecedents as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from

¶61

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3945 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 4/5

¶62

the conscious possession of the petitioners, 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.

¶63

6. 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.

¶64

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their 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

¶65

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3945 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 5/5

¶66

satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Hajipur at Vaishali in connection with Mahua P.S Case No. 724 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition:

¶67

(i). The petitioners namely, Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar and Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray are directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioners namely, Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar and Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh Kumar Ray liable to be cancelled.

¶68

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶69

Nilmani/-

¶70

U T

Manohar Ray @ Manohar Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Ray @ Manohar 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

Shyam Singh @ Ayush Kumar @ Bishal Kumar @ Sanjit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Satyjeet Prasad Sinha @ Satyajeet Sinha Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Singh @ Chandan @ Sumit Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Rai @ Raju Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Ray Vs The State of Bihar