Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56093/2017dismissed

Nitish Kumar @ Munna v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-23Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56093 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2017 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Nitish Kumar @ Munna Son of Satya Narayan Patel, R/o VillageBaikunthpur, Brahanda, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surya Narayan Roy Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. PRADEEP NARAIN KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 23-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Allegedly, about 52 litres of foreign liquor was recovered from the Alto vehicle which was being boarded by the petitioner and others. Seeing the police party, they tried to escape but they were apprehended. It appears that on earlier occasion, petitioner was apprehended in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No.97 of 2017 registered under Sections 30(a), 38(i), 39(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. However, in that case, petitioner was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56093 of 2017(2) dt.23-11-2017 2/2 granted bail vide order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.31716 of 2017. It appears from the aforesaid order that the bail was granted with a condition that if the petitioner after his release in that case, is again found to be involved in a matter of similar nature, the court concerned would be at liberty to take step for cancellation of his bail bond. However, it appears that after his release, the petitioner has been again found involved in similar type of activity. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the aforesaid order and in the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage.

Accordingly, bail application is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay/- U T