Sanoj Yadav @ Sanoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28222 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSHA RAJ District- Saharsa ====================================================== Sanoj Yadav @ Sanoj Kumar S/o Pradip Yadav R/o vill - Padampur, ward no. 8, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonbersha Raj P.S. Case no.150 of 2024 registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. As per the prosecution case, a secret information having been received that one Satyam Yadav with his two associates are involved in the business of liquor, the police party conducted raid and total of 46 liters of cough syrup with codeine was recovered from the house as well as behind the house of one Rinku Devi. On seeing police personnel, the accused however managed to escape.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The name of the petitioner has been taken in the F.I.R being one of associates of Satyam Yadav and also upon disclosure made by co-accused Rinku Devi. No recovery has been made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28222 of 2025(3) dt.25-06-2025 2/2 from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the said recovery has admittedly been made from the house of Rinku Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no independent witness is there on the seizure list further indicating violation of mandatory provisions of the B.N.N.S. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.

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

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Sonbersha Raj P.S. Case no.150 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-I, Saharsa, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T