Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14636/2020rejected

Mangal Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14636 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2020 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== MANGAL PASWAN Son of Late Kapil Paswan, Resident of Village-Uma Nath Purani Barh Bazar, P.S-Barh, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Manglam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Special Excise Case No.248(A) of 2020 arising out of Barh P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant (police officer) got secrete information that the petitioner was illegally selling liquor from his house. On such information, a raid was conducted but seeing the police party, the petitioner is alleged to have fled away. On search, 32 litres of liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner. The seizure list does not bear the signature of the petitioner or any family members of the petitioner. The petitioner was not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14636 of 2020(2) dt.04-09-2020 2/2 apprehended on the spot.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

It appears that the police got secrete information that the petitioner was illegally selling liquor from his house and on such information a raid was conducted but seeing the police party, the petitioner managed to flee away. On search, 32 litres of liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. 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