Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3973 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14553 of 2021
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2020 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Rai, aged about 30 years, Male, Son of Jagdish Rai Resident of Village - Sabha, P.S. Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on

29.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Sakra PS Case No. 488 of 2020 dated 26.09.2020, instituted under

Sections 30(a)/38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14553 of 2021 dt.05-08-2021

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the

police, on prior information that he had stored liquor at his house,

went there, on seeing the raiding party, one person fled away, who

was identified by the locals to be the petitioner and near the door

of his house of brick and asbestos, 45 litres of branded whisky was

recovered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from

the FIR itself it is clear that the recovery is from outside the house

of the petitioner and that he has no connection with such recovery.

It was further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal

antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR as well as

the seizure list it is clear that the recovery is from the premises of

the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is near the entrance and not outside

the premises of the petitioner. It was submitted that it is very

obvious that the door of the house would not open on the road or

the field as there is some distance between the same and

specifically it has been stated that when the police went to the

house to conduct raid, the recovery was made and the same may

not have been from inside the house, but definitely in the premises

owned by the petitioner as is obvious, both from the FIR as well as

the seizure list. Thus, learned APP contended that in such view of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14553 of 2021 dt.05-08-2021

the matter, prima facie an offence is made out under the Act and

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.

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 the

recovery is said to be from near the door of the house of the

petitioner and the narration in the FIR being that the police had

conducted the raid in the house of the petitioner, it appears that the

same is from the premises which was part of the household of the

petitioner and not outside the same. Thus, as has been rightly

submitted by learned APP, the present petition would not be

maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.

9. In the aforesaid background, the petition stands

dismissed as not maintainable.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T