Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6681/2020rejected

Umesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-11Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6681 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2019 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== UMESH SINGH Son of Late Kapil Dev Singh, Resident of Village - Domdih, P.S.- Mairwa, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mairwa P.S. Case No.310 of 2019 registered under Sections 30(a) and 38(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant alleged that he got secret information that a Wagon R car was parked inside the premises of the brick kiln of Umesh Singh (petitioner) and there was liquor in the car. On such information, a raid was conducted. Two persons, namely, Saurabh Singh and Rajesh Rajbhar were apprehended and huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the vehicle as well as from the room adjacent to the brick kiln of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has let out the brick kiln to run on rent and the petitioner has no manner of concern with the brick kiln.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6681 of 2020(2) dt.11-06-2020 2/2 Naulakha Choudhary and Nawab Choudhary are alleged to have hidden liquor. Naulakha Choudhary has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Nawab Choudhary was granted regular bail. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing. Saurabh Singh and Rajesh Rajbhar, who were apprehended on the spot, have been granted regular bail, but it appears that huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the vehicle parked inside the premises of the brick kiln as well as from the room adjacent to the brick kiln, which is owned by the petitioner. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T