Ajay Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7432 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2019 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

AJAY MANJHI Son of Bandhu Manjhi Resident of Village - Harshidhi, Mushari Tola, P.S. - Harsiddhi, District - East Champaran. 2.

Mithu Manjhi @ Mithun Manjhi Son of Bandhu Manjhi Resident of Village - Harshidhi, Mushari Tola, P.S. - Harsiddhi, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Harshidhi P.S. Case No. 263/2019 registered under Sections 272, 273, 308, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(4) of Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge, Excise, East Champaran, Motihari.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics, nothing has been recovered from their possession and also that petitioners have got no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7432 of 2020(2) dt.02-03-2020 2/2 antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners submits that there are materials present on the record which shows recovery of 10 liters of illicit liquor from the house of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials present on the record showing that there are allegations of recovery of 10 liters of illicit liquor from the house of the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, thus, refused.

In case, the petitioners surrender and pray for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on it's own merit without being prejudiced by the orders of this court.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T