Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36674/2020dismissed

Zahid Taygi v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-01Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36674 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2020 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== ZAHID TAYGI S/o Sahid Tayagi R/o Village- Behraudha, P.S.- Kidhor, District- Meerut (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. R.P. Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 01-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2020 in connection with G.O. Case No. 679 of 2020, Manigacchi P.S. Case No. 143 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with recovery of 1743.480 litres of I.M.F.L. from a truck bearing Registration No. UP 15DT 4869. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and the goods being transported in the vehicle were owned by coaccused Nasir meant for delivery to Rajiv and Om Prakash. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, who claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36674 of 2020(2) dt.01-02-2021 2/2 stating that the petitioner was one of the drivers of the vehicle and was apprehended at the spot.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of offence alleged and the quantity of liquor recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T