High CourtsSingle Bench

Santosh Kumar Mandal @ Santosh vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 PAT CK 0276

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 — Section 30(a), 76(2) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28048 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 400 words
1.

Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Benipatti PS Case No. 236 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019, instituted under Sections 30 (a) of the

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner, though not named in the FIR, is that from the Scorpio vehicle belonging to him, 78 litres of nepali countrymade

liquor was recovered.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not involved and only after seven months a corrigendum was sent to the Court by the

prosecution for making the petitioner an accused on the basis of him being the owner of the Scorpio vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that the

vehicle was released in favour of the petitioner by the Court and only then the prosecution has woken up.

5.

Learned APP raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the application is not maintainable under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), since Section 76(2) of the Act does not permit filing of application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6.

Having considered the matter, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. Once there is no denial that the vehicle from which

liquor was recovered is registered in the name of the petitioner, which is further proved by the fact that the petitioner had filed an application for

release and the Court had allowed the same, it cannot be said that no offence is made out under the Act.

7.

For reasons aforesaid, the application stands dismissed as not maintainable.

8.

As the Court did not find the application to be supported by affidavit from its record, on a query to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was

submitted that the main application supported by affidavit has been e filed on 08th January, 2021. However, the Court Master informed that the same

is not reflected from the High Court portal.

9.

Be that as it may, let learned counsel for the petitioner verify the position and if required, the main application supported by affidavit be e filed latest

by Monday (25.01.2021) and the physical copy of which shall be filed when the same resumes.