Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar Suman @ Sandeep ... vs The State Of Bihar on 29 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34687 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2020 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar Suman @ Sandeep Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav @ Sandeep
Kumar, aged about 19 years(Male), Son of Shivanand Yadav, resident of
Mohalla- Ratnsoti, Ward No.11, Majgawan, Police Station- Majgawan,
District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Arif, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-04-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Kasba P.S. Case No. 98 of 2020 dated 05.08.2020, instituted
under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act').
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was
coming along with co-accused on a motorcycle and when the
police tried to stop him, the person driving the motorcycle was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34687 of 2020 dt.29-04-2021
caught whereas the other person, that is, the petitioner, is said to
have run away. It is alleged that the arrested person disclosed
the name of the petitioner as the person who was sitting behind
on the motorcycle from which there was recovery of 15 litres of
liquor bearing label for sale in West Bengal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
place of occurrence is near the village of the petitioner and he
was only taking a ride on the motorcycle of the person who was
arrested and had no role or knowledge of any liquor. It was
submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel submitted that only because the petitioner, even
if it is assumed that he was sitting behind on the motorcycle,
would not make him an accused, as neither the motorcycle
belongs to him nor he had any knowledge of what was being
carried on the motorcycle.
6. Learned APP submitted that the co-accused had
taken the name of the petitioner as the person who was sitting
behind in the motorcycle and has fled away and as per his
disclosure, he along with the petitioner used to transport liquor
from West Bengal and sell it at the local level. Thus, it was
submitted that prima facie, an offence is made out under the Act
and the present application under Section 438 of the Code of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34687 of 2020 dt.29-04-2021
Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable in view of
bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.
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. Once
an offence is made out under the Act, the present application
would not be maintainable.
8. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off
as not maintainable.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
