Guddu Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12273 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2019 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui * ====================================================== 1.

Guddu Singh, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Late Chandrashekhar Singh 2.

Rajesh Singh @ Dablu Singh Male, aged about 23 years, Son of Dharndhar Singh 3.

Chanchal Singh, Male, aged about 21 years, Son of Shyam Singh All are resident of village - Pathakchak, P.S.- Sikandra, Distt.- Jamui. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dinesh Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-03-2019 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present.

The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 5 of 2019 registered under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)/45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, pending in the court of learned A.D.J. - 2nd Jamui.

It appears that on perusal of the records that the recovery of alleged illicit liquor has been made from the motorcycle which belonged to the petitioners and the petitioners are said to be the persons who were driving the motorcycle when it was intercepted by the police party.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12273 of 2019(2) dt.05-03-2019 2/2 Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that since there is a recovery of illicit liquor from the motorcycle of the petitioners which they were riding, it would not be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Considering the submissions of learned A.P.P. representing the State that the recovery of illicit liquor is from the motorcycle of the petitioners which they were driving, this court is not willing to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to these petitioners.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

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