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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: petitioner to be enlarged on bail, upon arrest/surrender within six weeks, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur, in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 203/2023, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Singhiya P.S. Case No. 203/2023 for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act pressed by the State.

Court's answer

On consideration of the facts, circumstances and nature of allegation, the petitioner is to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks, 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, Samastipur, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the application stands allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Prakash Singh, J.), 13-02-2024, Criminal Miscellaneous No.4741 of 2024 — Anticipatory bail granted. Petitioner apprehended arrest in Singhiya P.S. Case No. 203/2023 (dated 08.08.2023) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act; prosecution alleged recovery of 61.740 litres of foreign liquor from the Janera crop field of the petitioner and co-accused Alok Sahu and Pappu Sahu. Petitioner's counsel relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (anticipatory bail application under the Excise law maintainable despite the Section 76(2) bar where, on the FIR allegations, no offence under the provision is made out); the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed, invoking the Section 76(2) bar. Held, allowing the application: petitioner, if arrested/surrendering within six weeks, to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on a bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, Samastipur, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. The Court did not expressly adjudicate the maintainability objection under Section 76(2).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4741 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2023 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur

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

Manish Kumar Sahu @ Manish Sahu S/O Chun Chun Sahu VILLAGESINGHIYA, PS. SINGHIYA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mahendra Pratap For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra ======================================================

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 Singhiya P.S. Case No. 203/2023, dated 08.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

As per the prosecution case, 61.740 litres of foreign liquor was recovered from the Janera crop field of the petitioner and the co-accused persons Alok Sahu and Pappu Sahu.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4741 of 2024(2) dt.13-02-2024 2/3

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 transpired on the basis of suspicion. 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 arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4741 of 2024(2) dt.13-02-2024 3/3

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, Samastipur in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 203/2023 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