Sanjay Choudhary vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mohiuddin Nagar PS Case No. 132 of 2020 dated 10.04.2020, 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 his house, when police went to raid on secret information, 19.250 litres of Indian Made Foreign

Liquor was recovered.

Learned APP at the outset, raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the application is not maintainable due to bar of Section 76 (2) of the

Act, which prohibits an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was submitted that

since the seizure has been effected from the house of the petitioner, an offence is made out under the Act and, thus, the bar would apply.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not meet the objection.

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. The recovery being made from the house of the petitioner, prima facie an offence is made out under the Act and thus the

bar of Section 76 (2) of the Act would apply.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off as not maintainable.

However, on prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before the Court below and prays for

bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.