Patna High Court
Shravan Roy @ Sharvan Rai @ Sharvan ... vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17457 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2020 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Shravan Roy @ Sharvan Rai @ Sharvan Kumar Rai (M), aged about 35
years, Son of Jungle Roy @ Khartar Ray, Resident of Village - Bhattpura,
P.S.- Manigachi, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Aprajita, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Pronoti Singh, 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 petitioner on
09.08.2021, which was allowed.
3. Heard Ms. Aprajita, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Pronoti Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Manigachi PS Case No. 136 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020, instituted
under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
5. As per the allegation, when the police on prior
information that the petitioner and others were dealing in illicit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17457 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021
liquor, went to the spot, some persons ran away leaving behind
two motorcycles and one person was caught and there was
recovery and upon his disclosure, the police recovered liquor from
various places, including straw hut of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
recovery is about 500 metres away from the house of the petitioner
and that he was not present at the time of seizure as he was with
his wife at Primary Health Centre during child birth. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the
recovered liquor and has no other criminal antecedent. Further, it
was submitted that similarly situated co-accused Suraj Kumar Ray
has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench by order
dated 25.06.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17100 of 2021.
7. Learned APP submitted that there is recovery from the
premises belonging to the petitioner and, thus, offence is made out
under the Act and therefore, the present petition under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be
maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act. Further, it was
submitted that there has been no recovery from the premises of co-
accused Suraj Kumar Ray and only on the statement of the
arrested co-accused he has been implicated in the present case and,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17457 of 2021 dt.21-08-2021
thus, the petitioner cannot seek parity with co-accused Suraj
Kumar Ray.
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 from the premises owned by the petitioner, prima facie
an offence is made out under the Act and, thus, bar of Section
76(2) of the Act would apply.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not
maintainable.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
