Manjay Rai @ Manjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar Patna

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 16-01-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted 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 Maniyari P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020 dated

27.02.2020 for the offences punishable u/s 272, 273, 290 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 34, 36, 41 and 56(D) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

As per the prosecution case, total 2655.750 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from a truck.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82926 of 2023(2) dt.16-01-2024 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. The petitioner is neither owner nor driver of the said vehicle. The other co-accused person has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15992 of 2021. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82926 of 2023(2) dt.16-01-2024 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, Muzaffarpur in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. atul/- U T (Chandra Prakash Singh, J)