Rambabu Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18679 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2024 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rambabu Chaudhari S/O Juman Chaudhari @ Jamuna Chaudhari Resident of village- Shyampur, P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Adapur Police Station Case No. 437 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024, disclosing offences under Sections 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 20.12.2024, at about 04:30 AM, during the patrolling, the police received secret information that huge quantity of illicit liquor consignment has to come at Shyampur Bazar. Upon which the police reached at the place of occurrence near the house of the petitioner. After seeing the police party, two persons started fleeing away and succeeded in it. On search, 256.5 liters of Nepali

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18679 of 2025(3) dt.15-05-2025 2/2 Kasturi liquor has been recovered from bush near the petitioner's house by the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure by the local Chowkidar. He next submits that illicit liquor has not been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and/or premises belonging to him. Rather, the same has been recovered from near the bush of the petitioner's house, which is open space accessible to all and sundry.

5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that according to the antecedent report, the petitioner is having five criminal antecedents of similar offences, whereas petitioner has disclosed only one criminal antecedent in para-3 of this application, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T