Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24281/2021bail rejected

Chandan Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-18Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24281 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-543 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- East Champaran ====================================================== CHANDAN SAHNI S/o Baldeo Sahni R/o village- Majhariya, P.S.- Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shanti Bhushan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 18-01-2022 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 Excise Case no. 543 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, recovery of seventy litres

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24281 of 2021(2) dt.18-01-2022 2/2 IMFL has been made from the hut 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. Neither the petitioner was arrested on spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession.

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 hut 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.

However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U