Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6440/2020dismissed

Karu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-28Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6440 of 2020 Arising Out of PS Case No.-194 Year-2019 Thana- RAUSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Karu Yadav, aged about 24 years, Gender-Male, Son of Brahmdev Yadav, Resident of Village - Badaki @ Badka Karasan, P.S.- Imamganj, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sushant Praveer, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Raushanganj (Bankey Bazar) PS Case No. 194 of 2019 dated 07.10.2019 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that 100 litres of Mahua wine belonging to him was recovered from an auto.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only due to village politics his name has been taken by the persons who were arrested with the tempo and that he has no connection with the said recovered wine. Learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6440 of 2020 dt.28-02-2020 2/2 submitted that the petitioner neither has any business nor has employed any person, much less those arrested with the auto.

5. Learned APP submitted that the persons, who were arrested with the auto, have stated that the petitioner had asked them to take the material to Gurwa where the petitioner had also gone and there is absolutely no reason to take the name of the petitioner if he was not known to the persons arrested. It was further submitted that the recovery of illicit liquor, which is said to belong to the petitioner clearly indicates that he was indulging in trade of the same.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T