Randhir Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

Randhir Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon arrest/surrender within six weeks, on bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions, to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Hajipur, Vaishali, in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 113 of 2023.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail is maintainable notwithstanding the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act, i.e., whether, per the Full Bench ruling invoked by counsel, no offence under the Act is made out on the FIR allegations, as against the Additional Public Prosecutor's contention that the bar applies. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts, circumstances and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest or surrender within six weeks, be enlarged on anticipatory bail 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, Vaishali, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail application stands allowed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4385 of 2024 — oral order dated 13-02-2024 by Chandra Prakash Singh, J. Petitioner Randhir Kumar sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Sarai P.S. Case No. 113 of 2023 (District Vaishali), FIR dated 17.04.2023, for offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, after prosecution alleged recovery of 1188 litres of India-made foreign liquor from two vehicles. Counsel argued the petitioner was innocent, had no criminal antecedent, owned one seized vehicle (Tata ACE) but neither drove it nor was present at the recovery, and that nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession; he relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 1089, that anticipatory bail applications in Bihar excise cases are maintainable despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act where the FIR allegations disclose no offence under the Act. The Additional Public Prosecutor contended the Section 76(2) bar applied. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegation, the Court enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail — arrest/surrender within six weeks; bail-bond Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each; Section 438(2) CrPC conditions; court concerned Hajipur, Vaishali. The application stands allowed. The order does not expressly adjudicate the Section 76(2) maintainability dispute; the cited Full Bench case was invoked by counsel and is recorded as referred.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4385 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2023 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali

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

RANDHIR KUMAR SON OF SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SARI, POLICE STATION - WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mahendra Pratap For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

ORAL ORDER

2 13-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 113 of 2023, dated 17.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

As per prosecution case, total 1188 litres of India made foreign liquor has been recovered from the two vehicles.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4385 of 2024(2) dt.13-02-2024 2/3

this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is neither the driver nor present in the Tata ACE. The petitioner is the owner of one seized vehicle but the same was not being driven by the petitioner at the alleged time of recovery. No incriminating material 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.

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.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4385 of 2024(2) dt.13-02-2024 3/3

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, Hajipur, Vaishali in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 113 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

Ranjeet/-

U T