Ved Prakash Ray @ Sahil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35493 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2023 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== VED PRAKASH RAY @ SAHIL KUMAR Son of Vinay Ray Resident of Village - Lal Pokhar Dighi, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Shaheen Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 36 and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, pending in the Court of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1 cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information 843.840 liters of country made liquor is said to have been recovered from the Bolero Pick up and three persons were inside said Pick up van, who managed to flee away from the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35493 of 2023(2) dt.27-07-2023 2/2 case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner has no concern with the seized pick van. He further submits that the petitioner was not apprehended at spot and the name of the petitioner has come in the present case on the basis of secret information. The petitioner has eight criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T