Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3913/2025dismissed

Umesh Rishidev v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-07Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3913 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2024 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria ====================================================== UMESH RISHIDEV S/O LATE DINESH RISHIDEV R/O VILL.- BHAGWANPUR WARD NO.- 03, P.S.- JOKIHAT DISTT.- ARARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sucheta Yadav, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No. 332 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Altogether 20 litres of country made liquor has been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. He has no concern either with the seized liquor or place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3913 of 2025(2) dt.07-02-2025 2/2 petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. He was not apprehended on the spot. His name has been transpired in the present case merely on suspicion. The room from where the alleged recovery has been made is an abandoned room which does not belong to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T