Pappu Sahani @ Pappu Chaudhary @ Randhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43513 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Pappu Sahani @ Pappu Chaudhary @ Randhir Kumar Son Of Late Sakal Chaudhary Village- Hathiyahi, P.S.- Pipra Kothi, Distt.,- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 82 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3.

The prosecution case in short is that 74.44 liters liquor was recovered from the hut of co-accused, namely, Rajendra Sah.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43513 of 2024(2) dt.03-07-2024 2/2 No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Petitioner bears eight criminal antecedents. Co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08-05-2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34846 of 2024.

5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

8.

However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the Court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T