Satish Kumar @ Satish Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37037 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- GHOGHARDIHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Satish Kumar @ Satish Kamat S/O Late Tilkeshwar Kamat Resident of Village and PS- Ghoghardiha, Dist.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Jha Raman For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Ghoghardiha Police Station Case No. 187 of 2024, dated 17.12.2024, disclosing offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the police, on secret information that a person has kept illicit liquor in the bush behind the P.H.C., Ghoghardiha, reached at the place of occurrence and on seeing the police, one person fled away, who was identified by the local persons as the petitioner. On search, the police recovered 7.8 litres of illicit Nepali liquor from the bush kept in a green coloured sack.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37037 of 2025(2) dt.25-06-2025 2/2

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the disclosure of his name by the local persons. He further submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the illicit liquor recovered inasmuch as the illicit liquor has been recovered from the bush, which is an open space and is accessible to all and sundry.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender inasmuch as four criminal cases of similar nature are pending against him.

6. Regards being had to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties concerned and taking into consideration the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √