Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24439/2025bail rejected

Pinki Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-06Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24439 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2025 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Pinki Devi W/O- Ranjan Dhangar @ Botla Moh- Chinakothi Harijan Colony Ps- Budhacolony Dist- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, lodged under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. As per the prosecution, total recovery of 36.90 litres of illicit foreign liquor has been made, which is the subject matter of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather, the recovery has been made from the house of another person. Counsel further submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24439 of 2025(2) dt.06-05-2025 2/2 the petitioner's name has figured in this case by virtue of the confessional statement of one Kiran Devi. Counsel also submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean, there are three criminal cases pending against him, out of which two cases are under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and one related to an excise matter. Moreover, counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T