Rajesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16210 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2021 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAJESH MAHTO S/o Chandeshwar Mahto R/o village- Mahmada, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anshu Dhar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rita Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pusa P.S. Case No.112 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Allegedly 640 litres of foreign liquor is said to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner, who is said to have fled away from the spot on seeing the police. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16210 of 2022(2) dt.30-09-2022 2/2 petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He has not been apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. No recovery has been made from the house of petitioner. He has no concern with the recovery of the illicit liquor or any trade of liquor. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the since the recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T