Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14631/2020rejected

Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-11-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14631 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2019 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== RANJIT KUMAR Son of Prem Nath Tiwary, R/O- Dr. Firoj Palak Jewellers, Sikandarpur, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Manjhi P.S. Case No.249 of 2019 registered under Sections 30, 30(g), 38(i) (ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The informant alleged that on secret information he intercepted a pick up van bearing Registration No.BR06GC2215 and arrested Rajnish Kumar Mishra (driver of the vehicle). 871.20 litres of English Wine of different brands was recovered. At the same time one Alto Car also came there and the driver of the car tried to flee away but he was apprehended. The driver of the Alto Car disclosed his name as Surendra Kumar Yadav. A huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor was also recovered from the Car.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14631 of 2020(4) dt.09-11-2020 2/2 petitioner is the owner of the pick up van but the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Rajnish Kumar Mishra to ply the vehicle on hire. Rajnish Kumar Mishra was plying the vehicle. The petitioner had no knowledge that Rajnish Kumar Mishra, who was apprehended on the spot, was carrying liquor in his vehicle, but it appears that a huge quantity of liquor was being carried in the vehicle of the petitioner and an agreement has been later on manufactured in order to save the skin of the owner of the vehicle.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T