Bimlesh Singh @ Bimlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25453 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2023 Thana- KHUSRUPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Bimlesh Singh @ Bimlesh Kumar, S/o Rana Pratap Singh, Resident of Village - Kohawan, P.S. - Khusrupur, Dist-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 196 of 2023 instituted under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, 60 liters illicit country made Mahua liquor was recovered from the tempo which belongs to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case being the owner of the seized tempo. He further submits that the alleged recovery of illicit liquor has not been made from conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25453 of 2025(3) dt.01-09-2025 2/2 sold the seized tempo in the year 2014 to one Arun Prasad but he has no satisfactory document to produce in this regard. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed and submitted that the seized tempo belongs to petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no satisfactory document to produce with regard to sale of the seized tempo, therefore, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get the privilege of anticipatory bail in view of Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.).

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and recovery of huge quantity of liquor from the tempo of petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) khushbu/- U T