Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40918/2023dismissed

Raghu Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-28Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40918 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2023 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== RAGHU SAO son of Shivdhani Sao Village- Karma Bhagwan govind Chak Ps- Muffasil Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukul Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 28-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.- 207 of 2023, G.R. No. 831 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act, 2018. He has got four criminal antecedents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2.160 litres of english wine has been recovered from the shed of the petitioner's motor pump. When the police reached there, the petitioner managed to escape.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the allegations are general, vague and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40918 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2023 2/2 omnibus.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the allegations that the alleged recovery of 2.160 litres of country-made liquor has been made from the fooder of animals at the motor pump of the petitioner, the petitioner admits that it is his motor pump and further that the petitioner has got four criminal antecedents of similar nature in which his is on bail and while being on bail once again the same allegation has come against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below, his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

9. This application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U T