Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34768/2020rejected

Mukesh Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2021-01-12Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34768 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2019 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MUKESH SAHNI SON OF LATE NAGA SAHNI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAIRIYA, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT - MUZAFFAPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Mr.Udbhav, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sahebganj P.S. Case No.70 of 2019 registered under Sections 272, 273 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 30(a)(g), 33, 34(b), 35(a), 36, 41(a)(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The informant alleged that after having received the information that at the instance of one Ram Naresh Sahni, who was in jail, his brothers Mukesh Sahni(the petitioner), Dinesh Sahni and Ganesh Sahni with their friend, Neeraj Sahni have concealed huge quantity of liquor in the house of Ram Naresh Sahni as well as in their house. On such information, the house of the brothers of Ram Naresh Sahni including the petitioner was searched and 986.50 litres of liquor was recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34768 of 2020(3) dt.12-01-2021 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner(Mukesh Sahni), Dinesh Sahni and Ganesh Sahni are brothers. Dinesh Sahni and Ram Naresh Sahni have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.21137 of 2020 and Cr. Misc. No.29521 of 2019. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing but it appears from the records that from the building situated near the house of the petitioner, 986 litres of liquor was recovered and petitioner is accused in six other cases of the similar nature. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the trial is not concluded within three months, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T