Sanjeet Kumar @ Jhallu Rai @ Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27639 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-365 Year-2022 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== SANJEET KUMAR @ JHALLU RAI @ SANJEEV KUMAR S/o- TIWARI RAI Village- Bajitpur Meyari Ps- Sarairanjan Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 307, 353, 504, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27, and 35 of Arms Act and Sections 30(a), 32(i), 32(ii), 36, 41(i), 45 and 62 of the Bihar Excise Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with one antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 2615.865 liters of liquor from a truck and from different places as detailed in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such, nothing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27639 of 2023(2) dt.17-05-2023 2/2 was recovered from his conscious possession, and he came to be implicated based on the disclosure made by the chowkidar and villagers.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it is not a case under the Excise Act only but even Arms Act, stands attracted for the reason that when police reached at the place of occurrence there was firing from the side of the accused persons and from the place of occurrence an empty cartridge has also been recovered.

Considering the submission made by the learned APP for the State, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Adnan/- U T