The Petition got dismissed and found non-maintainable under Section 76(2) of the Act and accordingly the bail application was denied: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 365720 Arising Out of PS Case No. 148 Year 2020 Thana HUSSAINGANJ District Siwan Ajeet Kumar Yadav @ Ajeet Kumar Yadav Gender Male aged about 24 years Son of Late Yogendra Yadav @ Yogendra @ Pahlawan Resident of Village Gosopali PS Hussainganj District Siwan The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Javed Aslam Advocate Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Javed Aslam learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Hussainganj PS Case No. 420 dated 10.06.2020 instituted under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that from the joint house of his and his brother 234 litres of liquor was recovered from near the staircase. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365720 dt.29 06 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though as per the allegation the recovery is from the house of the petitioner and his brother but in the seizure list it has been shown that the recovery is from the house of his brother who is also co accused and not the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and his brother are separate as there has been partition between them and the place from where recovery has been made belongs to his brother i.e. co accused Sanjeet Kumar Yadav. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal 6. Learned APP submitted that the full brother of the petitioner has confessed and has also stated that both him and the petitioner were together in the business of liquor and most importantly the recovery is from the joint house of the petitioner and his brother and thus such distinction of the place from which it has been recovered belonging to the other co accused is of no significance. It was further submitted that in the seizure list as the house was joint the name of only the brother has been mentioned but that would not mean that the recovery was not from the house of the petitioner also as the house was jointly owned by both the accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the allegation that recovery of liquor is from the house which also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365720 dt.29 06 2021 belonged to the petitioner the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 would not be maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act 7. 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. 8. Accordingly the application stands dismissed both on merits as also on the ground of non maintainability (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: Petitioner alleged of having in possession 234 Litres of Alcohol taken into custody for violation of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016. The Court denied the bail application and found it non-maintainable in the court of law. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Ajeet Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36575 of 2020]. 
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a Case, instituted under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioner is accused of having 234 litres of liquor retrieved from the joint house of his and his brother near the stairway. 

The petitioner’s learned counsel argued that, while the accusation states that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s residence, the seizure list shows that the recovery is from his brother’s house, who is also a co-accused, and not the petitioner’s. The petitioner and his brother are separate, according to learned counsel, because there has been a split between them, and the location from which recovery has been made belongs to the co-accused. It was further stated that the petitioner had no criminal history. 

It was argued by Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner’s full brother has confessed and stated that he and the petitioner were both in the liquor business together, and that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s joint house, and that the distinction of the location from which it was recovered belonging to the other co-accused is irrelevant. Due to the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, the counsel argued that the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable due to the allegation that liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s premises. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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.” The application was hence dismissed.
Click here to read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed by Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a Case, instituted under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioner is accused of having 234 litres of liquor retrieved from the joint house of his and his brother near the stairway.  
The petitioner’s learned counsel argued that, while the accusation states that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s residence, the seizure list shows that the recovery is from his brother’s house, who is also a co-accused, and not the petitioner’s. The petitioner and his brother are separate, according to learned counsel, because there has been a split between them, and the location from which recovery has been made belongs to the co-accused. It was further stated that the petitioner had no criminal history. 

It was argued by Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner’s full brother has confessed and stated that he and the petitioner were both in the liquor business together, and that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s joint house, and that the distinction of the location from which it was recovered belonging to the other co-accused is irrelevant. Due to the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, the counsel argued that the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable due to the allegation that liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s premises. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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.” The application was hence dismissed.
Click here to read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed by Nimisha Dublish
 The petitioner’s learned counsel argued that, while the accusation states that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s residence, the seizure list shows that the recovery is from his brother’s house, who is also a co-accused, and not the petitioner’s. The petitioner and his brother are separate, according to learned counsel, because there has been a split between them, and the location from which recovery has been made belongs to the co-accused. It was further stated that the petitioner had no criminal history.  
It was argued by Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner’s full brother has confessed and stated that he and the petitioner were both in the liquor business together, and that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s joint house, and that the distinction of the location from which it was recovered belonging to the other co-accused is irrelevant. Due to the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, the counsel argued that the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable due to the allegation that liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s premises. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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.” The application was hence dismissed.
Click here to read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed by Nimisha Dublish
 It was argued by Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner’s full brother has confessed and stated that he and the petitioner were both in the liquor business together, and that the recovery is from the petitioner and his brother’s joint house, and that the distinction of the location from which it was recovered belonging to the other co-accused is irrelevant. Due to the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act, the counsel argued that the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be maintainable due to the allegation that liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s premises.  
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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.” The application was hence dismissed.
Click here to read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed by Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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.” The application was hence dismissed.