← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35128/2018dismissed

Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-03Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35128 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2018 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia ====================================================== Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Sah, S/o - Dhorai Sah, Resident of village - Bhawanipur Bazar, P.S. - Bhawanipur, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nafisuzzoha For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-07-2018 Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Excise Case No. 504 of 2018 arising out of Dagarua P.S. Case No. 87 of 2018 , registered for the offence under Section 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has drawn my attention to the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition to show that petitioner is having clean antecedent. It has further been argued that petitioner only being owner of the vehicle in question has been made accused , otherwise,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35128 of 2018(3) dt.03-07-2018 2/2 there was no reason for implicating him in the present case. However , on perusal of the F.I.R. it is evident that private vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Maruti Suzuki Celerio was intercepted and from the said vehicle huge quantity of Indian make foreign liquor was recovered and driver was also arrested who disclosed the name of petitioner.

In view of the facts and circumstances, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T