Manik Chand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Cr. Misc. No. 19632 of 2020 ====================================================== Manik Chand Kumar, son of Swarth Ray, Resident of Village-Bariyarpur, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.-Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent State:

Mr. Naval Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2020 Heard Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Naval Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Bihar.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Rail Kiul P.S. Case No. 25 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition Act. Allegedly, from the petitioner's possession, huge quantity of illicit liquor was recovered by the police, which was kept in the toilet of one of the bogies of a train. On seeing the police, the petitioner and his accomplice attempted to flee away. Both of them were, however, apprehended. They are said to have disclosed to the police that they were engaged in the business of selling illicit liquor at Barh after purchasing it from

Jasidih, which falls in the State of Jharkhand. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the application that the petitioner is also an accused in Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 141 of 2019, which has also been registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, in which the petitioner is on bail. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case while on bail in another case involving same offence.

Considering the aforesaid circumstance, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of bail for the present. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if, in the meanwhile, the charges are not framed.

This application is rejected.

It is indicated that defect, if any, shall be removed within two months.

Since there is a lock down, the Court has considered it appropriate to adopt following procedure for communication of the present order :- (i) The order, which has been dictated during the course of the proceedings of virtual Court, shall be communicated to me on my e-mail I.D. by the Secretary.

(ii) The corrected copy of the order shall be transmitted by me from my e-mail I.D. to the Secretary, which shall be treated to be the authentic copy of the order passed by this Court today in the present proceeding.

(iii) Hard copy of the order, duly signed by me, shall be preserved in my residential-office for documentation and future use, if any.

(iv) Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned Court below through e-mail or any other appropriate electronic mode by the Registry.

Let steps be taken by the Registry for uploading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social distancing.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T