Arjun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36311 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMRIAGHAT DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sonu Ansari son of Amruddin Ansari resident of Village- Sareya Badurahan, P.S.- Dumariyaghat, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.37654 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMRIAGHAT DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Arjun Kumar, son of Laxman Sahani, resident of village-Pakari, P.S. Dumariyaghat, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.36311 of 2016) For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Gopesh Kumar, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.37654 of 2016) For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Gopesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2016 Heard.
Both the above stated petitions arise out of Dumariyaghat P.S.Case No.49 of 2016 pending in the Court of Ist ACJM, Motihari, East Champaran.
Petitioners were caught with huge quantity of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36311 of 2016 (3) dt.25-10-2016 2/2 country made liquor. Apart from this, the apparatus, which are used in manufacturing country made liquor, were recovered from the house of petitioner in Cr.Misc.No.36311 of 2016. Since petitioners were found indulged in manufacturing country made liquor, I do not think it proper to release the above named two petitioners on bail, at least, at this stage and accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected. However, if the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail before the learned Trial Court itself.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) B.Kr./- U T