CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Vinod Kumar Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 PAT CK 0202

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 272, 273, 353 · Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 — Section 30(a), 76(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32079 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

9 paragraphs · 355 words
1.

Heard Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with LNMU PS Case No. 61 of 2020 dated 27.02.2020, instituted under Sections 272/273/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3.

The allegation against the petitioners is that from their house 54 litres of liquor was recovered and their father was caught and he had also stated that he was into the business of liquor along with his sons, i.e., the petitioners, who had escaped.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the father was caught and the petitioners were not present at the spot and that under police duress, he was made to confess in which he has taken the name of all his sons. It was submitted that the petitioners are separate in lodging and mess and have their own separate business and have no connection with the recovered liquor and further that they have no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the present application is not maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act as there has been recovery of liquor from the house of the petitioners which prima facie constitutes an offence under the Act.

6.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP.

7.

There being recovery from the house of the petitioners, obviously offence is made out under the Act and the present application is thus, not maintainable.

8.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off as not maintainable.

9.

However, in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that if the petitioners appear before the Court below and pray for bail within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudice by the present order.