Anuj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46701 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Anuj Kumar Son of Arun Roy Resident of Vill- Pulpagara, P.S.- Dalsingh Saray, District- Samastipur.

2.

Amarnath Shah Son of Dinesh Sah Resident of Vill- Mulbichak ( Chak Nawada), P.S.- Dalsingh Saray, District- Samstipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered under Section-30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Sections-420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the tip off, the informant along with other police personnel in course of patrolling, saw a Honda City Car. The said car was directed to stop but the same did not stop and on chase, the car was stopped and two persons were arrested. It is further alleged that 56.25 litres wine is recovered from the said car.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46701 of 2024(2) dt.09-07-2024 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners are in custody since 01-06-2024. It is alleged that 56.25 litres wine is recovered from the car, in question. The petitioner No. 1 is said to be driver of the vehicle, in question where petitioner No. 2 is uncle of petitioner No. 1. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

5. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, specially the fact that the petitioners have got criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners in connection with Maranchi (Panchmahala O.P.)P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024 is rejected.

7. If so advised, learned counsel for the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after six months.

8. In the meanwhile, the learned court below shall take steps for framing of charge.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T