Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16653/2017dismissed

Uday Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16653 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2017 Thana -SUGAULI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Uday Singh, S/o Ram Chandra Singh

2. Chandan Singh, S/o Raj Bahadur Singh Both R/o Village- Murarpur, P.S.-Harsidhi, District-East Champaran, Motihari.

3. Suresh Sah, S/o Daroga Sah, R/o Village- Rani Chhapra, P.S.-Harsidhi, District-East Champaran, Motihari.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

In this case FIR has been lodged in connection with recovery of huge quantity of illicit liquor from co-accused persons and it is stated that on the disclosure of co-accused persons, the name of these petitioners has come in this case. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no recovery from their possession and they have falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of aforesaid

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16653 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017 2/2 statements of the co- accused persons.

Heard learned A.P.P.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of the record, it appears that name of the petitioners has transpire on the discloser of the co-accused and they are named in the FIR also apart from that they are also accused in two other cases and considering the aforesaid aspect and also considering provision under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. Let the petitioners surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail which shall be considered and disposed off on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

Ravi/- (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) U T