Kumar Gaurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34613 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2020 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== KUMAR GAURAV, S/o Late Umesh Singh @ Palita Singh @ Umesh Prasad Singh R/o village- Totaha, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-03-2021 As prayed for, let the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office vide its notes dated 11.12.2020, within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 152 of 2020, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, pending in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II-cumExcise Court, Vaishali at Hajipur. The accusation is that in course of patrolling duty, the informant and other Police personnel received information from excise department regarding keeping of liquor by Kumar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34613 of 2020(2) dt.17-03-2021 2/2 Gaurav (Petitioner) of village-Totaha, P.S. Lalganj, DistrictVaishali. Thereafter, the informant along with other Police personnel reached there and searched the house from where several bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in volume of 26.080 litres recovered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that, in fact, the alleged recovery of liquor was made by the informant and other Police personnel from other place and they asked petitioner to put his signature on the seizure-list, as witness, but petitioner refused to do so, due to that reasons, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

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

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