The Patna High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah while rejecting the bail application of accused booked for sale of illicit liquiour observed that when the ownership of the car containing illicit liquor is either jointly owned by the petitioners or one of them, both being full brothers and further, that the person, who was arrested, having stated that both of them were involved in manufacturing and selling of illicit liquor, an offence is prima facie made out under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. (Vikash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar )
Facts of the Case
The facts of the case are that there is an allegation against the petitioners is that they were in the business of manufacturing and selling of liquor in course of which the police had caught one person and 150 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from their ALTO 800 Car.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the case instituted under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated. Secondly, it was submitted that even as per the FIR, there were two persons in the car; one was caught and another managed to run away and the person, who was arrested, had disclosed the name of the petitioners. However, it was submitted that only one person managed to run away and the petitioners cannot be held responsible. It was further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
On a query of the Court as to the ownership of the vehicle, though the same has not been disclosed in the application, learned counsel submitted that it was in the name of petitioner no.1
Learned Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that the person, who was caught, has stated that he was the driver employed by the petitioners and that the car was of the petitioners and they were in the business of manufacturing and selling of countrymade liquor. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners, being full brothers, were together in the business of illicit liquor and, accordingly, the present application would not be maintainable in view of bar of Section 76(2) of the Act.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the parties observed, “Once, when, admittedly, the ownership of the car is either jointly of the petitioners or one of them, both being full brothers and further, that the person, who was arrested, having stated that both of them were involved in manufacturing and selling of illicit liquor, prima facie, offence is made out under the Act and, thus, the present application would not be maintainable. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off as not maintainable.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
