Ramayodhya Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10891 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2020 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAMAYODHYA MUKHIYA Son of Late Anant Mukhiya Resident of Village- Sangrampur Bintoli, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-07-2022 Heard the parties through virtual court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.248 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable u/s 30(a), 32, 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Altogether 25 litres of country made liquor is said to have been recovered from the house of petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10891 of 2022(2) dt.22-07-2022 2/2 in the FIR. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his enemies. Petitioner has neither been apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. He has no concern either with the seized liquor or any trade of liquor. The said recovery has been made from the road side behind the house of the petitioner in abandoned condition. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T