Ranjay Singh @ Ranjo Singh @ Ranjit ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1199 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31920 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2019 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya
 ======================================================

Ranjay Singh @ Ranjo Singh @ Ranjit Kumar, aged about 32 years (Male), Son of Kamta Singh, Resident of Village - Tetaru, P.S.- Atri, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. SSP Yadav, Advocate
 For the State            :        Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-03-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. SSP Yadav, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif learned In-charge Additional Public

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

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, learned APP, who has been assigned the

brief, despite the link having been sent and the Technical

Assistant trying to contract her on her mobile phone, did not

answer.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Atri PS Case No.455 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019, instituted under

Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)(d),

37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter

referred to as the "Act").

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31920 of 2020 dt.02-03-2021

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the

statement of Manjit Kumar, who was caught in a drunken state,

ten litres Mahua wine and utensils for manufacturing wine have

been recovered from the paddy crops of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the land belongs to his father, Kamta Singh, and he has no

connection with the same. It was further submitted that the

petitioner does not live in the village and Manjit Kumar is on

inimical terms with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP raised a preliminary objection and

submitted that the application is not maintainable in view of bar

of Section 76(2) of the Act. It was submitted that even if the

orchard is jointly owned by any person, each and every person

being responsible, the petitioner is also liable for the recovery

and further, that Manjit Singh, who was caught in a drunken

state, has taken the name of the petitioner and a person in a

drunken stage could not have manipulated or made false

statement and, thus, his statement is all the more reliable.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds substance in the objection of the learned APP. Prima Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31920 of 2020 dt.02-03-2021

facie case being made out under the Act, the present application

would not be maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed off as

not maintainable.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T