Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8482/2020dismissed

Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-27Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8482 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2019 Thana- JADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== RAHUL SINGH Son of Manoj Singh @ Manoj Ray Resident of Village - Hariharpur, P.S.- Jadopur, Distt - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2020 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Yadavpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2019, registered for offences punishable under Section30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of 192 litres of liquor from a four wheeler vehicle parked in front of the house of the petitioner. Apart from that it appears from the impugned order that petitioner is accused in one more case but he has not mentioned the same in his petition.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case only because there is recovery from the car parked in front of the house of the petitioner and except that there is nothing against the petitioner and he has been in judicial custody since 19.11.2019 and so far

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8482 of 2020(2) dt.27-02-2020 2/2 criminal antecedent is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the same.

However, this court failed to understand as to how the learned counsel for the petitioner has no knowledge about the criminal antecedent of the petitioner when that is specifically mentioned in the impugned order and petitioner has been remanded in this case from that case.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the allegation as well as criminal antecedent of the petitioner, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, however, once the charge is framed, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T