Nagina Pasi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17807 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -348 Year- 2016 Thana -GOPALGANJ TOWN District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Nagina Pasi, Son of Late Gulabchand Pasi, Resident of VillageKhajurbani, Ward No. 25, PS Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocates For the Opposite Party: Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2016 in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 348 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Sections 328, 304 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 50(a) (b) (c) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in fact, no one had consumed liquor in the house of the petitioner as alleged. It is further stated that other accused persons, namely, Chhathu Chaudhary @ Chhathu Pasi and Reeta Pasi @ Reeta Devi have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 12275 of 2017 and Cr. Misc. No. 7328 of 2017, respectively.

4. A perusal of the first information report discloses that it has been stated by one Bandhu Ram who was taken ill, that he had consumed liquor on the previous day at the house of the petitioner, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of liquor. The petitioner is an accused in a number of cases of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17807 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017 2/2 similar nature which suggests that he is a habitual offender

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged and also considering that a number of persons are said to have died in the tragedy, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran U T