Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32680/2024bail rejected

Aniket Kumar Singh @ Aniket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-22Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32680 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-743 Year-2023 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Aniket Kumar Singh @ Aniket Kumar Son of Uday Singh @ Uday Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Godhiyari, P.S- Tajpur, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-05-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 743 of 2023 instituted under Sections 147, 341, 323, 353, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 22.12.2023 by the informant, Prashant Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant upon secret information of selling of illegal foreign liquor by this petitioner, raided the house. However, it is alleged that the petitioner as also his family members stopped them from making any search. The further allegation is that the petitioner called the local villagers (100 in numbers) who created chaos and forced the Excise team to return to these excise police station, Samastipur. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32680 of 2024(2) dt.22-05-2024 2/2 excise Police has tried to implicate him, nothing has been recovered from the house nor despite his presence, he was arrested.

5. Learned APP on the other hand submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the moment the Police arrived, the petitioner, his family members stopped them from proceeding further. The allegation further is that he called the local villagers and they created a chaos which forced the Police to return.

6. Considering the that has come against the petitioner, certainly it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T