Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Rai v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Feb 2024CR. MISC./7327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by petitioner apprehending arrest for offence under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after recovery of illicit liquor from vehicles including his motorcycle. Court relied on Full Bench ruling that Section 76(2) bar yields where FIR allegations do not support the offence, and allowed anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail on bail-bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount, within six weeks, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Mukesh Kumar Rai Vs the State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7327 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2023 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Mukesh Kumar Rai Son Of Surendra Rai Resident Of Village - Bhagirathpur, P.S. - Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP.

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 19-02-2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 318 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023 for the offence punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶17

As per the prosecution case, total 134.250 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from five different vehicles (one car, three motorcycles and one scooty).

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7327 of 2024(2) dt.19-02-2024 2/3

¶20

owner of the said motorcycle. The said motorcycle was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case because he is the owner of the said motorcycle. The petitioner has 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.

¶21

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

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material available on record, let the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7327 of 2024(2) dt.19-02-2024 3/3

¶24

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. 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 Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 318 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

The application stands allowed.

¶26

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶27

annpurna/-

¶28

U T

Mukesh Kumar Rai v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Rai v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Navin Kumar @ Navin Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sohan Singh Vs State of Bihar

Dinanath Vs the State of Bihar

Nitish Yadav @ Raitar @ Neetesh Yadav @ Neepesh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar