Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52002/2017dismissed

Janu Singh @ Kautuk Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-09Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52002 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2017 Thana- Karakat District- Rohtas ======================================================

1. Janu Singh @ Kautuk Kumar

2. Umang Kumar @ Kitu

3. Kiran Singh All sons of Late Abhay Singh

4. Sohan Singh, son of Bhuri Singh

5. Anuj Kumar Singh @ Arjun Kumar Singh son of Mohan Singh

6. Mohan Singh son of Bhuti Singh

7. Gaurav Kumar @ Gaurav Kumar Singh son of Mirtunjay Prasad Singh @ Dadan Singh

8. Jaymangal Singh @ Chotan son of Late Kishandeo Singh All residents of village - Karima, P.S. - Karakat, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

09-11-2017 Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mouar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Manoj Kumar-I, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Eight petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Karakat P.S. Case No. 170 of 2017 registered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 353, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 36 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, have prayed for grant of bail in the event of their arrest or surrender.

Learned counsel for petitioners, by way of referring to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52002 of 2017(2) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 F.I.R., submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated and though, recovery of 10 pouches of country-made liquor was shown, but it was recovered from verandah, not from conscious possession of either of the petitioners. He further submits that only due to some animosity, petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.

However, on going through the F.I.R., it is evident that police party, while discharging their duty in respect of search and seizure, were obstructed by the petitioners, which fact has been stated in the petition and considering the nature of accusation, the Court is of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled to get the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T