Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34821 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2020 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar, Son of Mahatma Yadav, Resident of Village - Jamhra, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, Dist.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-04-2021 As prayed for, let the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within four weeks of starting of the Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special (Excise) Case No. 106 of 2020, arising out of Sour Bazar (Patarghat O.P.) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2020, registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 2016.

The accusation is that in course of patrolling duty, one tempo was seen in suspicious condition then search was made by the informant and other police personnel. In that course, 1900 pouches

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34821 of 2020(2) dt.05-04-2021 2/2 each containing 200 ml country made liquor recovered concealed in the concealment box of the tempo and two persons found sitting in the said tempo, who disclosed their names as Kundan Yadav and Shrawan Yadav. On query, Kundan Yadav introducing himself as driver of the tempo and also disclosed the name of petitioner as owner of the said tempo.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, petitioner is the owner of the tempo and same was handed over to coaccused, Kundan Yadav to ply on fare and the petitioner had no knowledge about keeping the illicit liquor in the concealment box in the tempo. Further submission is that petitioner is accused in one another case, i.e., similar nature of case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T