Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43866/2024rejected

Chintu Kumar @ Chintu v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-29Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43866 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-645 Year-2023 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Chintu Kumar @ Chintu Son of Rajesh Yadav R/O Village- Sipah, P.S.- Deepnagar, Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S Case No. 645 of 2023 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.

3. As per prosecution case, total 70 litre country made liquor has been recovered from the Maruti Aulto Van and apprehended person stated that he has sold the liquor to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R is false,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43866 of 2024(3) dt.29-11-2024 2/2 fabricated and concocted against the petitioner. The petitioner has no concerned with this occurrence and recovered illegal liquor.

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

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that petitioner is named in F.I.R, petitioner is arrested on the spot, investigation against the petitioner is pending. Moreover, petitioner has got three criminal antecedents, one is of similar nature of 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

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