Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25067/2016dismissed

Rajendra Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2016-06-13Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25067 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2016 Thana -NTPC KHAIRA District- AURANGABAD =========================================================== Rajendra Choudhary, Son of Late Charitar Choudhary, Resident of VillageKojrain, Police Station- N.T.P.C., Khaira, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K.Nirala, A.P.P.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in N.T.P.C. Khaira P.S. Case No. 17 of 2016 dated 16.03.2016 instituted under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is of manufacturing country made liquor illegally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was caught only on suspicion as he was present at the spot when the police made raid. However, it is submitted that recovery has not been made from his conscious possession or from his house and that he, having no criminal antecedent, is in custody since 17.03.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25067 of 2016 dt.13-06-2016 2/2 Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that huge quantity of 150 litres of illegal Mahua liquor was recovered in different pots and the petitioner was constructing a Bhatti and on seeing the police party, he tried to run away, but was caught. It is submitted that in view of there being total ban of country made liquor in the State, the policy and object of the State does not permit any person to indulge in such activity and in the present case, there being huge recovery, the petitioner does not deserve bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

However, the court below shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/Ravi U T