← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14625/2020rejected

Gunjan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-03Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14625 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2020 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== GUNJAN KUMAR @ CHANDAN KUMAR Son of Butu Choudhary Resident of Village - Lipganj Chatti, P.S.- Sherghati, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sherghati P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant alleged that after having received secret information that Gunjan Kumar and Bablu Choudhary had stored a huge quantity of illegal liquor in their house, a raid was conducted. On search, a huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 11.525 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner but the seizure list was not made in accordance with the provision of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, the police transplanted the recovery

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14625 of 2020(2) dt.03-09-2020 2/2 of Indian made foreign liquor from the house of the petitioner for the reasons best known to the police. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, but it appears that the police after having received secret information raided the house of the petitioner and 11.525 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of 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