Kamlesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47569 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2005 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictBHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Kamlesh Singh, Son of Daya Singh, Resident of Dewhaliya, P.S.- Ramgarh, District - Kaimur at Bhabua.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 02-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Excise P.S. Case No. 02 of 2005 instituted under Sections 47 of the Excise Act and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The allegation against the petitioner is that from his village 25 packets each containing 25 grams 'Ganja' and various kinds of liquor have been recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific mention as to from where the recovery has been made and though it was shown to have been made in September, 2004 but the Excise Case has been registered only in January, 2015 which itself raises doubt about veracity of such recovery. It is further submitted that even the cognizance has been taken only in the year 2014 and thus the petitioner had to move for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel submits

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47569 of 2015 (3) dt.02-11-2015 2/2 that the petitioner having no criminal antecedent deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P.

opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the mere fact that alleged recovery is from the village of the petitioner, he cannot be said to have been unaware of such recovery and if he had any genuine ground of false implication, on the ground that the recovery was not from his premises or could be connected to him, he ought to have moved the Court for anticipatory bail within a reasonable period but doing so after almost 10 years shows that there was intention to manage the investigation and when the same did not fructify, he had approached the Court.

Considering the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail before the Court concerned, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T