Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23086/2021bail rejected

Kanhai Sahni @ Kanhaiya Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-06Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23086 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2020 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== KANHAI SAHNI @ KANHAIYA SAHNI Son of Prbhu Shani @ Prabhu Sahni Resident of Village - Bedauliya, P.S.- Mushahari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hari Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-01-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Mushahari P.S. Case no. 169 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition an Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story relates to recovery of 49.200

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23086 of 2021(2) dt.06-01-2022 2/2 litres of IMFL from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has got no criminal antecedent. Nothing has been recovered from his conscious or constructive possession of the petitioner.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the alleged house belongs to the petitioner, from where recovery of illegal liquor has been made, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U