Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36316/2020rejected

Vimal Kishore Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2021-04-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36316 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Banka ====================================================== Vimal Kishore Thakur Son of Faudi Mohan Thakur Resident of village - Tardih, P.S. - Amarpur, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chhotelal Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2021 Heard both sides.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Excise Comp. case No. 32/2020 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

The complainant alleged that he got secret information about keeping of huge quantity of liquor in village Tardih. The informant and others raided the house situated on the land of the petitioner and recovered 92.6 liters of illicit liquor, which was kept concealed in the toilet made outside the house.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not residing in his house. The petitioner is living in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36316 of 2020(2) dt.08-04-2021 2/2 Ranchi. The petitioner filed petition before the Superintendent, Excise, who also found that petitioner is living in Ranchi. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case but it appears from the complaint petition itself that raid was conducted in the house of petitioner and from the toilet situated outside the house of the petitioner 92.6 liters of liquor was recovered. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T