Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19449/2024bail rejected

Narendra Mahto @ Narendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-13Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19449 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-766 Year-2023 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Narendra Mahto @ Narendra Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar Prasad R/o Vill - Bhikhni Bigha, P.S. - Sare, District. - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 13-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Excise P.S Case no. 766 of 2023 registered under sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. As per the prosecution case, 277.5 litres of IMFL was recovered from the premises of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 1.11.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. no.68941 of 2023 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later. Learned counsel submits that charge

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19449 of 2024(2) dt.13-03-2024 2/2 has been framed against the petitioner in the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.2.2024 (Annexure-3). As such it is submitted that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the observation in the earlier order of rejection dated 1.11.2023 wherein the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail 'after completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later', though charge has been framed against the petitioner, his being in custody since 14.9.2023 and not having completed one year in custody, in the opinion of the Court, this application is pre-mature and is thus rejected.

7. The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail as directed vide order dated 1.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 68941 of 2023.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T