Allowed¶25

Raju Mahto @ Raju Kumar Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Feb 2024CR. MISC./9078/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: anticipatory bail; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; Section 30(a); Section 76(2) bar; Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (Full Bench, Patna High Court); illicit country liquor 857 litres; motorcycle and orchard recovery; Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023 dated 05.11.2023; District Gopalganj; co-accused Vikash Mahto; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9078 of 2024; section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure conditions; Chandra Prakash Singh, J; order dated 22-02-2024; bail-bond Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: petitioner to be enlarged on bail if arrested/surrenders 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, in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023. ¶25

Raju Mahto @ Raju Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023 for offences u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Petitioner directed 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, Gopalganj, subject to conditions under section 438(2) CrPC.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application was allowed notwithstanding the State's objection invoking the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, S. 30(a) — Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023 (Distt. Gopalganj); prosecution case of recovery of total 857 litres of illicit country-made liquor from a motorcycle and an orchard; petitioner has one criminal antecedent — counsel submitted petitioner innocent, neither owner nor driver of the vehicle, recovery from an open place accessible to anyone and not from his conscious possession, and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of the Bihar Excise Act maintainable despite the bar under Section 76(2) if no offence made out on FIR allegations) — A.P.P. opposed invoking the Section 76(2) bar — HELD: petitioner, if arrested/surrendering within six weeks, to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two like sureties, subject to section 438(2) CrPC conditions; application allowed (Chandra Prakash Singh, J).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9078 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2023 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj

¶3

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

¶4

Raju Mahto @ Raju Kumar Mahto S/O Devnath Mahto R/O VillagePiprahia, P.S- Barauli, Distt.- Gopalganj.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 22-02-2024

¶15

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

¶16

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023 dated 05.11.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶17

3. As per the prosecution case, total 857 litres of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the motorcycle and the Orchard.

¶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 one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The name of the petitioner was

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9078 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 2/3

¶20

disclosed by local Chowkidar and the co-accused, Vikash Mahto. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle and the same was not being driven by the petitioner at the time of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery rather the recovery has been made from an open place which is accessible to anyone. Nothing 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

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9078 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 3/3

¶24

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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Gopalganj in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 457 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

7. The application stands allowed.

¶26

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶27

Gautam/-

¶28

U T

Raju Mahto @ Raju Kumar Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Mahto @ Raju Kumar Mahto 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

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Altaf Vs The State of Bihar

Dular Chand Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mobassir Alam @ Bhim Singh Vs The State of Bihar