Vinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16348 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2020 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna ====================================================== VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV Resident of Bhikna Pahari, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Md. Anis Akhtar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Town Pirbahore P.S. Case no. 356 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, on secret information, police has reached at the house of the petitioner and a recovery of 44.85 litres IMFL has been made from there. One co-accused Kunal Kumar was apprehended on spot, who disclosed the name

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16348 of 2021(2) dt.08-12-2021 2/2 of the person, who succeeded in fleeing away as the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has got no criminal antecedent. Neither the petitioner was arrested on spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious possession. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the alleged house belongs to the petitioner from where recovery has been made, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same may be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U