Patna High Court
Shambhu Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37734 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2020 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Shambhu Manjhi, aged about 35 years, Gender-Male, Son of Bhuteli
Manjhi.
2. Dudhnath Manjhi, aged about 50 years, Gender-Male, Son of Rameshwar
Manjhi.
Both are resident of Village- Dumra, PS-Jamo Bazar District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner no. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn as far as
petitioner no. 1, namely, Shambhu Manjhi was concerned on
22.07.2021 and is restricted to petitioner no. 2, namely, Dudhnath
Manjhi.
4. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection
with Jamo Bazar PS Case No. 178 of 2020 dated 28.08.2020,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37734 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021
instituted under Sections 272, 273, 308/38 of the Indian Penal
Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
5. On submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner on 22.07.2021, the Court had asked learned APP to
obtain the up-to-date legible photo copy of the entire case diary of
the present case from the Superintendent of Police, Siwan and also
a specific report as to whether the place from which
recovery of liquor has been shown, as far as petitioner no. 2
is concerned, was owned by him and if not, by whom. The Court
had also granted interim protection to the petitioner no. 2.
6. Today, learned APP submitted that he has got copy of
the case diary as also the said report. It was submitted that the
same discloses that there are two other cases against the petitioner
no. 2, one of which is under the Act and also one other case
against the petitioner no. 1. Further, it was submitted that the
palani from which recovery was made is recorded in the name of
the ancestor of the petitioner no. 2.
7. When the Court called upon learned counsel for the
petitioners to explain as to why there was suppression with regard
to the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, he had no reply.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37734 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021
Learned counsel submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw
the petition for surrendering before the Court below.
8. Learned APP submitted that the present petition is
also not maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act as
recovery is from the palani owned by the petitioner no. 2.
9. 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 there is
recovery from the palani owned by the petitioner no. 2, prima
facie an offence is made out under the Act and, thus, the present
petition would not be maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of
the Act.
10. The petition besides being not maintainable, is also
required to be dismissed with cost for the reason that a patently
false stand was taken before the Court that the palani from which
recovery was made did not belong to petitioner no. 2 and also for
having made a categorical statement in paragraph no. 3 that the
petitioners have got fair and clean antecedent. Both were within
the personal knowledge of the petitioners and not disclosed and a
wrong statement having been made, the Court is required to take a
strict view.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37734 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021
11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not
maintainable with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by petitioner no.
2, namely, Dudhnath Manjhi and Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by the
petitioner no. 1, namely, Shambhu Manjhi. The same be deposited
latest by 13th September, 2021 and receipt filed by 16th September,
2021, by way of Bank draft in favour of the Registrar General of
this Court, who shall deposit it in the account in which such
deposits are being kept in terms of order dated 12.11.2020 passed
in CWJC No. 2106 of 2019, failing which Registry shall place the
matter before the Bench for necessary orders.
12. Interim protection granted to the petitioner no. 2
under order dated 22.07.2021, stands vacated.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
