Ranjit Sahni @ Rajnit Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39650 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ranjit Sahni @ Rajnit Sahni S/O Nawal Sahni R/O Village - Ward No.4, Rohua @ Rohua Phulkahan Shyampur Bhataha, P.S.- Shyampur Bhataha, Dist. - Sheohar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Suppi P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of 16.2 litres of Nepali Saufi liquor from the dickey of Glamour motorcycle of which petitioner is registered owner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case being the owner of the seized motorcycle. Further submission is that the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.03.2024 and the same was used by co-accused Rahul Patel.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39650 of 2025(3) dt.30-08-2025 2/2 Petitioner has no concern with the seized illicit liquor. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which, he is on bail. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is registered owner of the seized motorcycle which was used for transportation of illicit liquor. There is no document available on record which shows that the said motorcycle was stolen. The prima facie is made out against the petitioner. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle from which, the illicit liquor has been recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T