Sunil Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1255 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2019 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== SUNIL PANDEY, Son of Sidh Nath Pandey Resident of Village - Mishrawalia, P.S. - Barahampur, District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Rani Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barahampur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2019, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Amendment Act, 2018, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Buxar.

The accusation is that on receiving secret information about gathering of the persons indulged in illicit liquor business at Jogia more, informant along with other Police personnel proceeded there then saw that one pick up van and one Mahindra car parked there. On seeing the Police party, they started to flee away, but three persons from pickup van and one person from car were apprehended, while one person

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1255 of 2020(2) dt.23-01-2020 2/2 from from Car and three persons from pickup van succeeded to flee away. The apprehended persons disclosed their names Sonu Kumar, Anil Kumar Pandey, Manoj Pandey, Anjani Yadav and Allamuddin. The apprehended persons also disclosed that Sunil Pandey (petitioner), Sonu Singh and other succeeded to flee away. On search of pick up van, 246 cartons, each containing 48 bottles of 180 ML and on search of car 24 cartons, each containing 48 bottles of 180 ML Indian made foreign liquor recovered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2019, while petitioner is accused in other cases, as detailed in paragraph No.3 of the petition, out of four cases, he has been released on bail in one case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T