Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31835/2020dismissed

Jay Jay Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-02Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31835 of 2020 Arising Out of PS Case No.-154 Year-2019 Thana- SINGHIA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Jay Jay Mandal, aged about 34 years (Male), Son of Parmeshwar Mahto @ Prameshwar Mahto @ Hareram Mandal, Resident of VillageKameshwarnagar, Shivajinagar, PS- Hathauri, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-03-2021 Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Singhia PS Case No. 154 of 2019 dated 11.10.2019, instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner, as per the statement of the driver of the truck from which 4271.520 litres of liquor was seized, belonged to him and were to be delivered to four persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the person who was caught has stated the name of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31835 of 2020 dt.02-03-2021 2/2 petitioner without him having any connection to the seized liquor. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor anything has been recovered from his house.

5. Learned APP submitted that the person who was arrested has taken the name of the petitioner and there is no reason for any false implication and that the petitioner is the kingpin as he was the person to whom the liquor belonged.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T