2. Heard both sides.

Section 76(2) of the Act reads as follows:—

“76(2) Notwithstanding anything mentioned in sub-section (1) above, nothing in Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Act 2 of 1974), Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Act 2 of 1974) and Probation of Offenders Act 1958 ( 20 of 1958) shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act”

3. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Mr. B.P. Pandey and Mr. B.K. Sinha, Sr. counsels have appeared for the petitioner. It is contended that Section 76(2) of the Act, in so far as it purports to bar the remedy as provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘the Code’) is concerned, suffers from non compliance with the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the Code is a Central Act whereas the Act in- question has been enacted by the State. The provisions of Section 76(2) of the Act which bars such remedy under Section 438 of the Code is directly in conflict with the Code and is, therefore, repugnant as in a situation like the present one Article 254(2) mandates that such provisions which is/are repugnant to the provisions of the earlier law made by the Parliament with respect to that matter shall prevail in the State only if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. In the present case, the said requirement of Article 254(2) has not been complied with. The provisions of Section 76(2) of the Act has not till date been reserved for consideration of the President and/or has not received Presidential assent. It is further argued that this position in law has been noticed in the order of reference. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued that Section 76(2) of the Act being repugnant to the Central law is held void and, therefore, shall not be a restriction to entertain application for grant of anticipatory bail under the Code.

4. Alternatively, it has been urged that without going into the issue of repugnancy of the Provisions of the Code, this Court, in the light of the order of reference, should clarify that the Registry of the Court shall not be entitled to refuse or object to the entertainment of such petition filed under Section 438 of the Code. The question whether an accused under the Act is entitled to the remedy under Section 438 of the Code, would only be the subject matter of judicial scrutiny and discretion of the Court. The same could not be left to be examined by the Stamp Reporter or the Registry of the Court. The order dated 07.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26109 of 2017 to the extent it restrains the Registry from entertaining anticipatory bail petition is unsustainable in law. The Registry shall be entitled to examine only application of filing procedure contained in the Rules of the High Court at Patna. The maintainability of the application should be left to the judicial consideration of the Court.

5. It is stated that a large number of applications for prearrest bail are pending for filing in view of the order dated 07.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26109 of 2017. He submits that in compliance of the said order dated 07.07.2017 the stamp reporter/registry is not declaring these bail applications as defect free and as such the applicants/petitioners therein are being denied judicial co