Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39302/2017dismissed

Md. Julfikar @ Md. Sonam @ Md. Julfaikar @ Md Zulfaikar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-22Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39302 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -270 Year- 2016 Thana -DHURAIYA District- BANKA ======================================================

1. MD. JULFIKAR @ MD. SONAM @ MD. JULFAIKAR @ MD ZULFAIKAR, son of Samsul Islam, Resident of Village- Urdu Bazar, P.S. Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Dhoraioya P.S.Case No.270 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of 16 ltrs. of english wine from one motorcycle, which is said to be in the name of the petitioner.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his name has appeared only on the basis of suspicion as the motorcycle belongs to the petitioner and now he is in custody for more than five months. It is also submitted that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39302 of 2017 (2) dt.22-08-2017 2/2 though he is accused in two other cases but he is on bail in both the cases including a case under Section 30(a) and 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition Act.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of allegation and criminal antecedent of the petitioner in similar type of cases, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of three months and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T