Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34708 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar, aged about 23 years, Male, son of Sanjay Rai.
2. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 21 years, Male, son of Sanjay Rai.
Both are resident of Village - Salempur, P.S. - Lalganj, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-04-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as
the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Vaishali PS Case No. 12 of 2020 dated 16.01.2020, instituted
under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act').
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they
were in the business of manufacturing and selling of liquor in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34708 of 2020 dt.30-04-2021
course of which the police had caught one person and 150 litres
of illicit liquor was recovered from their ALTO 800 Car.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
they have been falsely implicated. It was submitted that even as
per the FIR, there were two persons in the car; one was caught
and another managed to run away and the person, who was
arrested, had disclosed the name of the petitioners. However, it
was submitted that only one person managed to run away and
the petitioners cannot be held responsible. It was submitted that
the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
6. On a query of the Court as to the ownership of the
vehicle, though the same has not been disclosed in the
application, learned counsel submitted that it was in the name of
petitioner no. 1.
7. Learned APP submitted that the person, who was
caught, has stated that he was the driver employed by the
petitioners and that the car was of the petitioners and they were
in the business of manufacturing and selling of countrymade
liquor. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners, being full
brothers, were together in the business of illicit liquor and,
accordingly, the present application would not be maintainable
in view of bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34708 of 2020 dt.30-04-2021
8. 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,
when, admittedly, the ownership of the car is either jointly of the
petitioners or one of them, both being full brothers and further,
that the person, who was arrested, having stated that both of
them were involved in manufacturing and selling of illicit
liquor, prima facie, offence is made out under the Act and, thus,
the present application would not be maintainable.
9. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off
as not maintainable.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
