Ranjeet Rajbanshi @ Ranjeet Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
This application stands allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is not the owner of the said…
- Para 77. This application stands allowed. jyoti/- U T (Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ORAL ORDER 2 15-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 90 of 2023 dated
27.02.2023 of the offences punishable u/s 30(a), 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2018.
As per the prosecution case, total 65 litres of illicit country made liquor was recovered from the three motorcycle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle and the same was not being driven by him at the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17473 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 time of alleged recovery. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the three apprehended person. No incriminating article 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.
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.
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 enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17473 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Nawada, in connection with Sirdalla P.S. Case No. 90 of 2023 subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Operative part
This application stands allowed. jyoti/- U T (Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 — ss. 30(a), 41; Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.