Dhiraj Sahni @ Dhirendra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18936 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2021 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dhiraj Sahni @ Dhirendra Sahni S/O Harendra Sahni Resident of villageSorhatha, P.S.- Belsar O.P., District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 366 of 2021, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 414 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 30(a), 32(II), 34, 38(II) and 41(I) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, 3723.81 liters liquor was recovered from different vehicles.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18936 of 2025(2) dt.28-03-2025 2/2 no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case during course of investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2025 and has got sixteen criminal antecedents in which he is on bail in six cases. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that there is sixteen criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected at this stage. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T