Ashok Sahni vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heard Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Pusa PS Case No. 20 of 2020 dated 06.03.2020, instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

The allegation against the petitioner is that from outside his hut in his field, there is recovery of 10 litres of solution for manufacturing countrymade liquor in two while plastic buckets and various equipments like 200 litres green colour drum, one small stove, one five litres gas cylinder, one aluminum pot and a five litres green coloured plastic gallon were recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery has not been from the conscious possession of the petitioner and in the field, which though may belong to the petitioner, but he has no connection with the recovered articles. It was submitted that in the FIR itself, it has been stated that there were independent witnesses but surprisingly, no independent witness has signed on the seizure list, on which only two police personnel of the raiding party have made their signature. It was submitted that the petitioner has not criminal antecedent.

Learned APP submitted that admittedly the recovery of the mixture for making countrymade liquor and equipment to make the same having been recovered from the field which belonged to the petitioner, he cannot plead innocence. Further, it was submitted that the application itself is not maintainable in view of bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, in terms whereof, an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not permissible. It was further submitted that in the FIR, it is clearly stated that when the police had reached the site, one person had run away under the cover of darkness and further that the police party had gone on specific information that the petitioner was indulging in manufacture of countrymade liquor on his land.

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 with regard to maintainability and also on merits.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed, both on the ground of maintainability and also on mereits.