Sanjay Pasi @ Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3407 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2018 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan ====================================================== Sanjay Pasi @ Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary son of Prabhu Pasi R/O VillageGopalpur, P.S. - Hussainganj, District - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 269/2018 registered under Sections 30(a)/36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the statement of the coaccused who were arrested by Police while they were carrying illicit liquor and were trying to flee away on seeing police party. Learned counsel submits that prior to lodging of this case there was no criminal antecedent of the petitioner, but after this case was lodged, the petitioner has again been involved in the Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 277/2018.

Learned A.P.P. for the State is present and has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, as according to him, the petitioner seems to be a habitual offender and is involved in trade of illicit liquor.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3407 of 2019(2) dt.29-01-2019 2/2 where it appears that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the statement of the co-accused who were arrested with the illicit liquor and then one more case has been lodged against him for similar offence, this court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner is refused.

In case, the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by the orders of this court. This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T