Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10292/2017dismissed

Babloo Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-06Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10292 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2017 Thana -GAYA MUFFSIL District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Babloo Pandit Son of Late Mangru Pandit @ Late Mangru Prajapat, Resident of Village- Gere Road Krishnapuri Colony, Police StationMofassil in the district of Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2017 The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2017 in connection with Mofassil P.S. Case No. 23 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though there is allegation of recovery of 280 litres of country made liquor and 58 litres of indian made foreign liquor, however the same was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the same was recovered outside the house of the petitioner. Petitioner has been in custody since 17.01.2017. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that there is huge recovery of country made as well as foreign liquor from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10292 of 2017 (2) dt.06-03-2017 2/2 possession of the petitioner, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, the privilege of regular bail, at this stage, it is accordingly rejected.

However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of six months in judicial custody and if any such application is filed, the court below shall consider the same on the merit of the case and shall also consider the period of custody of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T