Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49826/2021bail rejected

Vikash Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-23Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49826 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2020 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan ====================================================== VIKASH KUMAR SINGH S/o LATE AJEET SINGH @ AJEETA SINGH R/o VILLAGE-BARWA DUMRI, P.S- JAMO BAZAR, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 272, 273, 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per the prosecution case, 198 litres of liquor is said to have been recovered from a pick-up van and the driver of the vehicle was taken into custody.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question. He was neither arrested at the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. He is in custody since 14.7.2021.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49826 of 2021(2) dt.23-02-2022 2/2 The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the petitioner has an antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question and having an antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U