Bhushan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36502 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2018 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== BHUSHAN SAH Son of Bhairav Sah Resident of Village - Sihpur, Basantpur, P.S.- Sathi, Distt - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 272, 273, 413, 414, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36502 of 2019(3) dt.26-06-2019 2/2 opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is named in the first information report alongwith other accused persons. Perusal of the seizure list shows that there is recovery of several equipment used in preparation of illicit liquor from the house of this petitioner. There are materials showing complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime. He, therefore submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T