Kamlesh Chaudhry v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60274 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2018 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Kamlesh Chaudhary, Son of Kewal Chaudhary, Resident of VillageMakhdumpur (Dih), P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S.K. Lal, Adv.

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-10-2018 Heard Sri S.K. Lal, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 30(a), 37(a) (b) (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender.

learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to the F.I.R. as well as seizure list, submits that the petitioner has falsely been made accused in the present case. He submits that on secret information, the police had conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner and from the second floor of the house of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60274 of 2018(2) dt.06-10-2018 2/2 the petitioner, it was alleged that about 45 kg. decomposed Mahua was found kept in a container. Besides this, half litre of country made liquor was also shown to be recovered. It has been emphasized that seizure is itself in contravention of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The seizure witnesses are not belonging to the same village and, as such, it was a case of false accusation.

However, on going through the F.I.R., it is evident that on secret information, when raid was conducted, from the house of the petitioner, two persons in drunken condition were arrested. Besides arrest of two accused persons from the premises of the petitioner, there is also recovery of liquor and, as such, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U T