← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4467/2023bail rejected

Niranjan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-27Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4467 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2021 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== NIRANJAN YADAV Son of Ram Udgar Yadav R/V- Bagnauchi, P.S- Baheri, Dist- Darbhanga Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Adarsh Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-04-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 30(a), 32(i), (iii), 36, 41(i) and (ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, registered in connection with Bikram P.S.Case No. 325 of 2021.

A truck was intercepted by the police. 2212 litres of liquor was recovered therefrom. Two persons Pravin Kumar and Shri Bhagwan, sitting in the said vehicle, were arrested. They disclosed that the petitioner along with one Sharawan Kumar Jha @ Bambam was consignee of the liquor loaded on that truck.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4467 of 2023(2) dt.27-04-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent. His name has figure only in the confessional statement of co-accused Pravin Kumar, who has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

It appears that the consignee of the contraband is the petitioner and one Shrawan Kumar Jha @ Bambam. There are eight cases against the petitioner of similar nature, amongst which, as submitted, in six cases the petitioner is on bail. Considering the strong criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail, which is hereby rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after three months of framing of charge.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T