Lal Babu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34019 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Nawada ====================================================== Lal Babu Yadav Son of Yamuna Yadav Resident of Village Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with G.O. Case No.320 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

873 litres of foreign liquor is said to have been recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather 873 litres of foreign liquor has been recovered from a Bolero vehicle. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34019 of 2021(3) dt.24-06-2022 2/2 submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle, therefore, he has been made accused in the present case. It is submitted that the said vehicle was used for commercial purposes. The petitioner had given the vehicle to his driver and he was not aware of the illegal act of his driver. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the fact that there is no documentary evidence to show that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T