Achin Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34938 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2019 Thana- GHANSHYAMPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Achin Paswan, Male, Age 30 years, Son of Aklu Paswan, Resident of Village- Karkauli, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. 2.

Uday Paswan, Male, Age- 45 years, Son of Horil Paswan, Resident of Village- Karkauli, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. 3.

Jairam Paswan, Male, Age-40 years, Son of Horil Paswan, Resident of Village- Karkauli, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-03-2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ramchandra Singh, the learned Additional P.P. the petitioners apprehend their arrest in Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No.206 of 2019, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The informant alleged that while he was on patrolling duty, he got secret information that Achin Paswan, Uday Paswan and Jai Ram Paswan had brought consignment of liquor and kept in their house and on such, raid was conducted. 420 litres of liquor was recovered from the house of Achin Paswan, Uday Paswan and Jai Ram Paswan.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34938 of 2020(2) dt.17-03-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case merely on suspicion. The seizure list witness, Dilip Mahto is of different village. The raid was conducted in the mid of night and the story of fleeing away the petitioners from the place of occurrence does not seem to be believable, but it appears that from the house of the petitioners, 420 litres of liquor was recovered. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T