IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Rajendra Pasi @ Rajendar Pasi - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Pasi - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35583 of 2020
Decided On : 28-06-2021
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - Recovery from House - Application for Anticipatory Bail Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, where liquor was allegedly recovered from their houses.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that since the recovery was alleged to be from the houses of the petitioners, an offence was prima facie made out under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for anticipatory bail was maintainable given the alleged recovery from the petitioners' houses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which barred the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application if an offence was prima facie made out under the Act due to the recovery from the petitioners' houses.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Javed Aslam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with G.B. Nagar PS Case No. 57 of 2020 dated 06.03.2020, instituted under Sections 30(a)/34/36/38/41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the police on information went to the house of petitioner no. 1, 16.5 litres of liquor was recovered whereas from the house of petitioner no. 2, 10 litres of country made liquor was recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the so called recovery is not from the conscious possession of the petitioners and none of his family members were present. It was submitted that only on suspicion they have been named and further that they have no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation, the recovery being from the house of the petitioners, the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act would apply as an offence is made out under the Act and, thus, the present application itself would not be maintainable.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP.
8. Once recovery is alleged to be from the house of the petitioners, prima facie, an offence is made out under the Act and, thus, the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.
9. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as not maintainable.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.