Pradeep Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44893 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2014 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Nawada ====================================================== PRADEEP CHAUDHARY SON OF JAGESAR CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PS- GOVINDPUR, NAWADA, DISTRICT- NAWADA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 23-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with G.O. Case No. 452 of 2014, registered for the offence punishable u/s 47(a), (f) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Altogether 60 litres of country made liquor and 300 kg fermented Jawa Mahua, which was destroyed, have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. After seeing the police, petitioner is said to have fled away.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern either with the seized liquor or any trade of liquor. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44893 of 2023(2) dt.23-08-2023 2/2 allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his enemy. He is not the owner of the alleged place rather the alleged house is inhabited by several family members and he had no knowledge of keeping of the said liquor in the house. He was not apprehended on the spot. He had not consumed liquor. Petitioner has been residing in Gujarat since long. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent of similar nature that of the present case.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail petition and submits that petitioner is the member of the syndicate which involved in manufacturing of the illicit liquor, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T