Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38892/2024bail rejected

Pintu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-27Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38892 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Pintu Ram Son of Chotelal Ram Resident of Village - Mahaicha, P.O- and P.S- Mirganj, Dist- Gopalganj, Bihar-841438 2.

Indal Ram Son of Late Dinananth Ram Resident of Village - Mahaicha, P.Oand P.S- Mirganj, Dist- Gopalganj, Bihar-841438 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akshay Ashish For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No.90 of 2024 lodged under section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against four named and two unknown accused persons including the petitioners against whom there is allegation of recovery of 1537.920 liter wine, which is subject matter of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38892 of 2024(2) dt.27-05-2024 2/2 further submits that the petitioner No.1 is driver and petitioner No.2 is helper of the alleged truck from where the recovery has been made, but they were unaware about the alleged recovery of wine. He submits that their name have figured in this case by virtue of suspicion only.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are in custody since 18.03.2024 having clean antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioners is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioners that they may renew their prayer for bail 3 months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T