Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12556/2020bail rejected

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-23Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12556 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2019 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav Son of Komal Yadav, Resident of VillageKarmauni, P.S.- Dobhi, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar No.2 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renuka Ratnakar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019, arising out of Sherghati (Dhobi) P.S. Case No. 54 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 30 (a) (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the present case, the police has intercepted two persons and they have disclosed the names of large number of persons involved in the illegal trade of wine, ultimately, the name of the petitioner has surfaced during investigation. The had gone to arrest him where he fired upon the police party and on that account, they could not arrest him. Later on, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12556 of 2020(8) dt.23-06-2020 2/2 petitioner surrendered before the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 40 litres of liquor has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, but from the record it appears that a syndicate for illegal trade has been constituted and they are not only involved in the trade of liquor, but also involved in the trade of N.D.P.S. and when the police party had gone to arrest the petitioner, he resorted firing on them.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer after one year of custody.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T