Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46125/2024dismissed

Shiv Dayal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-04Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46125 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2024 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== Shiv Dayal Rai S/o- Late Shiv Shankar Rai Village- Didarganj Check Post Near Dharamshala Ps- Didarganj Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jay Ram Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Malsalami P.S. Case No. 193 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act 2016.

3. As per allegation, 350 liters country-made liquor was recovered from the tempo. On being chased by the police, the driver became successful in fleeing away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged liquor. He has also submitted that nothing was recovered from his possession. The petitioner is under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46125 of 2024(2) dt.04-07-2024 2/2 custody since 21.04.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation and also the fact that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent on similar nature, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after nine months from today. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T