Patna High Court
Ravi Pandey @ Ravi Prakash Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34548 of 2020
Arising out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2020 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Ravi Pandey @ Ravi Prakash Pandey, (Male) aged about 30 years, Son of
Kamal Kishore Pandey Resident of Village- Panchrukhi, Tola- Mathiyan,
P.S.- Panchrukhi, District- Siwan.
2. Anuj Pandey @ Anuj Kumar Pandey, (Male) aged about 35 years, Son of
Kamal Kishore Pandey Resident of Village- Panchrukhi, Tola- Mathiyan,
P.S.- Panchrukhi, District- Siwan.
3. Rahul Pandey @ Rahul Kumar Pandey, (Male) aged about 24 years, Son of
Kamal Kishore Pandey Resident of Village- Panchrukhi, Tola- Mathiyan,
P.S.- Panchrukhi, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-05-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Anant Kumar No. 1, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Panchrukhi PS Case No. 112 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020, instituted
under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34548 of 2020 dt.21-05-2021
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that from
outside the house of their brother, co-accused Shashi Bhushan
Pandey, there was recovery of 45 bottles of liquor totalling 18.375
litres.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
they have no connection with the brother and even recovery is said
to have taken place from outside his house. Learned counsel
submitted that in the FIR itself it has been stated that the seizure
witnesses were two constables which clearly raises suspicion as
the neighbours refused to become witness. It was submitted that on
the seizure list, though the reference is with the present case dated
13.05.2020, but in the column of date and time, it is written
14.05.2019 at 22:10 o'clock and even the signature of the
informant is dated 14.05.2019. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioners have no criminal antecedent and have nothing to do
with their brother as they live separately from him and he lives in
his own house. It was submitted that had the Choukidar identified
the petitioners and their brother, at least he could have been one of
the witnesses but the same not being the case, there is doubt with
regard to the correctness of the allegation. Learned counsel drew
the attention of the Court to a news item in the daily newspaper
Prabhat Khabar dated 15.05.2020, which indicates that there was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34548 of 2020 dt.21-05-2021
recovery of 45 bottles of liquor under the same police station
which tallies the number of bottles shown to have been recovered
from outside the house of the brother of the petitioners, which
clearly shows that there has been false implication by the police.
Learned counsel submitted that there is no connection of the
recovered liquor with the petitioners and, thus, there would not be
any bar of Section 76(2) of the Act as no offence is made out
against them under the Act. It was submitted that the petitioners
have no criminal antecedent and further that co-accused Shashi
Bhushan Pandey @ Pappu Pandey @ Pappu has been granted
anticipatory bail by order dated 09.04.2021 in Cr. Misc. No. 35284
of 2020.
6. On the submission of learned counsel, earlier the
Court had asked to learned APP to obtain up-to-date copy of the
case diary with a specific report with regard to the place from
where recovery has been made, i.e., whether it was from the
portion owned by the accused or outside the portion owned by the
accused.
7. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the
recovery has been made from the behind the house of the
petitioners and it has come that the petitioners were living together
with co-accused Shashi Bhushand Pandey @ Pappu Pandey @
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34548 of 2020 dt.21-05-2021
Pappu and all brothers were indulging in the illegal business of
liquor. It was submitted that the report clearly states that the land is
just behind the house of the petitioners and belongs to one Kashi
Nath Bairagi, but from a long time it has been taken on bataidari
by the petitioners and, thus, learned counsel submitted that the
present application is also not maintainable due to bar under
Section 76(2) of the Act. It was submitted that in the seizure-list
due to slip of pen the date instead of 13.05.2020, at some places
14.05.2019 has been written, which cannot be said to be falsify the
prosecution case, as apparently since in the erroneous recording it
is also wrongly mentioned as year 2019; clearly indicating that the
entire date has been erroneously written as 14.05.2019 instead of
13.05.2020. It was submitted that it is a bona fide mistake and not
any incorrect fact has been recorded.
7. 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. Further, on the
specific report of the Superintendent of Police, Siwan that the
petitioners live in a joint house and from the place from which
recovery has been made is under their control and possession
being taken on bataidari, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34548 of 2020 dt.21-05-2021
9. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed, both on
merits as well as on the ground of non-maintainability.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
