Sunny Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30872 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2021 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SUNNY KUMAR, Son of Binod Singh, Resident of Village - Rupaspur Bhattha, Near to Indian School, P.S.- Rupaspur, Distt.- Patna. ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 28-10-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He is in custody since 28.01.2021. The petitioner has got eight criminal antecedents and this is the 9th case in a row.

As per the prosecution story, the informant got secret information regarding delivery of illicit liquor by the petitioner. The informant reached at the given place and apprehended the petitioner. The informant recovered 28.905 litres of illicit liquor from the Alto Car and Scooty.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30872 of 2021(2) dt.28-10-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern with the seized vehicles and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2021 and investigation against him is complete.

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is accused in eight cases of similar nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the petitioner has eight cases on his head of similar nature and this is the 9th case in a row, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is, thus, refused. Let the trial be expedited.

If the trial remains unconcluded within a period of six months for no reason attributable to the petitioner, he may renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.