Nitish Kumar @ Jhariya @Jharilal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19266 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2020 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== NITISH KUMAR @ JHARIYA @JHARILAL SON OF LATE RAMESH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF MUHAMADPUR SAKARA, TOLA MURIYA STHAN, P.S.- VIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Smt. Pushpa Sinha-I, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-11-2021 Heard Sri Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Smt. Pushpa Sinha-I, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2020, registered under Sections 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Excise Act, Samastipur.

Briefly stated, the allegations made in the F.I.R. relating to Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2020, dated 15.02.2020, are that upon information about storage of huge quantity of foreign liquor in the house of petitioner. Petitioner's house was raided and about 393.120 litres of wine of different brand were recovered packed in 45 cartons from the Angan of the house of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19266 of 2021(3) dt.16-11-2021 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, earlier, the petitioner has been made accused in Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 205 of 2018, 213 of 2019 and 167 of 2020 under different sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He further submits that petitioner is in jail custody since 15.01.2021.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State, vehemently, opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and is engaged in trading of illicit liquor so he does not deserve to be released on bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the antecedent of the petitioner as well as recovery of huge quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

If the petitioner is so advised, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T