Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37446/2021bail rejected

Dhela @ Pintu Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-07Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37446 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2021 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== DHELA @ PINTU CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE DHARMNATH CHOUDHARY Resident of Village - Ghorahat, P.S.- Manjhi, Dist.-Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 07-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 272, 273 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per the prosecution case, on information having been received and a raid having been conducted, it is stated that a total of 2656.44 litres of IMFL was recovered from a truck outside the house of the petitioner. Further, 102.24 litres of IMFL was recovered from the old house of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession or

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37446 of 2021(2) dt.07-01-2022 2/2 his house. He has no concern either with the seized liquor nor with the truck in question. He is in custody since 1.5.2021 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner is accused in as many as four cases under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T