Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39237/2024disposed

Lallu Kumar @ Lallu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-28Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39237 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2023 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Lallu Kumar @ Lallu Ray S/o Bute Lal Ray @ Bute Lal Yadav Resident of Village-Rani Saray, Ward no.- 27, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Bihari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Section-30(a) of the Bihar Excise & Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

3. Earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by this court by order dated 29-02-2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72915 of 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per FIR, the petitioner was not caught at the spot and he became successful in fleeing away. The co-accused namely Gautam Kumar was arrested by the police, who disclosed name of the petitioner. 40 litres illicit liquor is said to have been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39237 of 2024(2) dt.28-06-2024 2/2 recovered from the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that there is nothing against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this court by order dated 29-02-2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72915 of 2023 as there were number of cases against the petitioner relating to Prohibition of Excise Act.

5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstance, I do not think it proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However, if so advised, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer after six months.

8. With the aforesaid observations, this application is dismissed.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T