Baidyanath Rai @ Baidyanath Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1369 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31684 of 2020
        Arising Out of PS Case No.-170 Year-2019 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
     ======================================================

1. Baidyanath Rai @ Baidyanath Kumar Rai Male, aged about 31 years, Son of Indareshwar Rai.

2. Shrawan Kumar, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Surendra Rai.

Both residents of Village - Mohanpur, PS- Patori, District - Samastipur.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-03-2021

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional

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

State.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Bachhwara PS Case No. 170 of 2019 dated 29.08.2019, instituted

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

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that when

the police, on information that on the Bank river at Suroghat some

persons were indulging in smuggling of illegal wine, reached the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31684 of 2020 dt.09-03-2021

spot, they saw persons standing along with four motorcycles and

upon seeing the police, they ran away and on search liquor was

recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

though out of four motorcycles, two of them belonged to the

petitioners, but they were used by their relatives and upon seeing

police, they had fled away out of fear and the recovery has been

planted. It was submitted that though it is alleged that there is

some recovery from the dicky of the motorcycle of petitioner no.

1, but from the motorcycle of petitioner no. 2, nothing has been

recovered. It was further submitted that the petitioners have clean

antecedent.

5. Learned APP submitted that when the motorcycle

belonged to the petitioners, there was no occasion for them to flee

away on seeing the police and further that from the motorcycle of

petitioner no. 1, there is recovery and even the petitioner no. 2

leaving the motorcycle and fleeing away and all the four

motorcycles found together clearly indicates that all the accused

were very much part of the illegal trade in liquor. Thus, it was

submitted that the present application is not maintainable in view

of bar of Section 76(2) of the Act as prima facie, a case is made

out against the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31684 of 2020 dt.09-03-2021

6. 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 learned APP. Once all the

four motorcycles including those of the petitioners, were

recovered after the persons riding them had fled away on seeing

the police and there being recovery from some of the motorcycles,

at least, as per the allegation, offence under the Act is made out.

7. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands disposed

off as not maintainable.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T