Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33137/2020dismissed

Rajnish Prasad @ Badmas v. The State Of Bihar

2020-12-14Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33137 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2020 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan ====================================================== RAJNISH PRASAD @ BADMAS Son of Laxmi Bhagat Resident of Village - Siyari Khurd, P.S.- Barharai, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikram Deo Singh :

Mr.Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akbar Ali (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Barharia P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 272, 273, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a), 41(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.

Based on secret information that the petitioner and three other persons were dealing with illicit liquor and were in process of sending huge consignment to some unknown destination, a raid was conducted, leading to recovery of 4050 liters of foreign liquor. The petitioner had managed to flee away, when the raid was conducted. However, he was taken into custody on 18.06.2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33137 of 2020(2) dt.14-12-2020 2/2 Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been implicated because of business rivalry at the behest of his rivals. He has argued that though the petitioner's name has cropped up on the basis of secret information, there is no material suggesting the source from where the police had received the secret information.

Be that as it may, considering the huge quantity of illicit liquor recovered by the police and the petitioner's criminal antecedent, as disclosed in paragraph 3 of the application, which reflects his involvement in a number of similar criminal cases, in my opinion, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. This application is accordingly rejected.

If there is no substantial progress at the trail, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court for renewing his prayer for regular bail after six months. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/- U T