Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42665/2024rejected

Rishikesh Kumar Yadav @ Rishikesh Yadav @ Rishikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-23Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42665 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rishikesh Kumar Yadav @ Rishikesh Yadav @ Rishikesh Kumar Son of Harihar Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.- Balanpatti, P.S.- Laukaha, Dist.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laukaha Police Station Case No. 55 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. As per the allegation in the FIR, a raid was conducted by the police and during course of search 72 pieces of Kingfisher beer, totaling 36 liters were recovered from a sack tied on a motorcycle of the person who had fled away while being searched by the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42665 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 2/2

5. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as also the petitioner has three criminal antecedents and one case is related to Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2018, so specially considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as stated in paragraph 3 of the bail application, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) saurabhkr/- U T