Ranjit Mahto @ Ranjeet Mahaton v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48716 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2012 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Ranjit Mahto @ Ranjeet Mahaton Son of Late Saket Mahto Resident of Ward No.- 17, Samsa, P.S.- Naokothi, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and u/s 47(F) of the Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that police got a secret information about manufacturing of the illicit liquor is going on by this petitioner and his associates on large level, thereafter, police proceeded towards the spot and on seeing the police, petitioner fled away from the spot and on search police recovered live cartridge, articles of manufacturing of liquor from the spot.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48716 of 2024(5) dt.05-12-2024 2/2

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession or the house of the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. It is further submitted that petitioner has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

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

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) annpurna/- U T