Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11152/2019rejected

Alok Kumar Pandey @ Alock Kr. Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2019-05-20Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11152 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2018 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran ====================================================== ALOK KUMAR PANDEY @ ALOCK KR. PANDEY S/o Anil Kumar Pandey Resident of village-Agauthar, P.S.- Ishuapur, District- Saran, Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Masrakh P.S. Case No. 70 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 30/30(a)/30(c)/38/41/45/47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in this case on basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11152 of 2019(4) dt.20-05-2019 2/2 Learned Addl P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that huge quantity of illicit liquor has been recovered from the vehicle of this petitioner and during investigation materials have come showing his involvement in the alleged crime. He, therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T