Roonak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7734 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2021 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== ROONAK KUMAR SON OF SUBHASH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MADHAV NAGAR, P.S- BHAWANIPUR, DIST- PURNEA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-06-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in Dhamdaha P.S. Case no. 258/2021 registered for the offence punishable under section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act Allegedly, 811.470 liter of foreign liquor of different brands was recovered from a room situated at a brick kiln and the petitioner was arrested at the spot.

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner has got clean antecedent and has been languishing in jail since 19.11.2021 and alleged place from where alleged recovery is said to have been made does not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7734 of 2022(2) dt.22-06-2022 2/2 belong to this petitioner and while making the seizure list, signature of the petitioner was not taken which clearly evidents from the seizure list which shows petitioner's false implication in the present case.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

I have heard both sides and perused the FIR seizure list attached to the FIR. From a room situated at a brick-klin 811.470 liter foreign liquor was recovered and the petitioner was arrested at the spot. Though the said place of recovery does not belong to the petitioner as submitted but as per prosecution the petitioner accepted his role as well as his brother's role in smuggling of the alleged wine.

Considering these facts as well as recovery of huge quantity of liquor, in my view, this petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail at this stage and accordingly his prayer for bail stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) s.hassan/- U T