Anil Kumar @ Anil Prasad @ Anil Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41644 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-638 Year-2015 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== Anil Kumar @ Anil Prasad @ Anil Gupta S/O Jamdar Prasad R/O Vill.- Dumari, P.S.- Jogapatti, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madan Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 638 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, in the year 2014-2015, the petitioner along with other accused person applied for liquor lottery in the name of informant without knowledge of the informant, which was allotted in the name of the informant in Group No. 64 and thus they conspired to implicate him by evading taxes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41644 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 The informant has applied and fully aware with the allotment of shop in his name. It is very much unbelievable that the Excise Department would allot the liquor shop license without verifying the document and identity of the allottee.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Earlier, the bail application of the present petitioner has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 17.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26030 of 2023 in which he was directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of six weeks from that day, but presently petitioner has sought for second attempt of anticipatory bail which is not maintainable because he is not having any new ground. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T