Sudhir Kumar Yadav @ Laddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36690 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Yadav @ Laddu Yadav, son of Hari Yadav Village- Tintanga Karari Balutola Ps- Gopalpur Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the allegation is of recovery of 24.375 litres of liquor along with one country-made firearm from the house of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and the police in order to give a serious colour to the case falsely alleged that a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36690 of 2024(2) dt.21-06-2024 2/2 country-made pistol was also recovered.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that a country-made firearm was also recovered from his house and though it has been submitted that petitioner was not present in his house when the raid took place, but then, the anticipatory bail application is completely silent with respect to the defence of the petitioner i.e. there is no pleading to the effect that where the petitioner was when the raid was conducted.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T