Puspak Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4206 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24157 of 2021
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2020 Thana- NIMACHANDPURA District- Begusarai
      ======================================================

1. Puspak Singh, aged about 26 years.

2. Lalit Singh, aged about 36 years.

Both son of Daya Ram Singh @ Damroo Singh.

3. Daya Ram Singh @ Damroo Singh, Son of Rajo Singh, aged about 57, Resident of Village- Bandhwar, PS- Nimachandpura, District- Begusarai.

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

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

      For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate
      For the State           :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-08-2021

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 petitioners on

09.08.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Nimachandpura PS Case No. 105 of 2020 dated 06.12.2020,

instituted under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24157 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021

30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act').

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that on

information when police reached the spot, from in front of his

house a truck laden with liquor and from his house and also from

near it, huge quantity of liquor was seized.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as

per the FIR and the seizure list, recovery has not been made from

the house of the petitioners or from his conscious possession.

7. Learned APP submitted that the recovery has been

made from the house of the petitioners as would be clear from the

FIR as well as the seizure list and, thus, the present petition under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not

be maintainable in view of 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

would only observe that it is unfortunate that in spite of their

being specific allegation in the FIR with regard to recovery of

liquor from the house, both in the main body of the FIR and the

seizure list, such fact was been controverted and learned counsel

for the petitioners had submitted that there is no such allegation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24157 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021

9. Be that as it may, in view of recovery of liquor being

from the house of the petitioners as is specifically written in the

FIR as well as the seizure list, the Court finds the contention of

learned APP that the present petition would not be maintainable in

view of bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, is valid.

10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not

maintainable.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T