Sujanti Devi @ Barki v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44657 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2022 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SUJANTI DEVI @ BARKI Wife of Pawan Manjhi Residence of villageChainpura, P.S- Parasbigha, Distt- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyama Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-10-2022 Heard the parties through virtual court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects within four weeks.

Petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No.108 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 37, 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

Altogether 15 litres of Mahua liquor is said to have been recovered from the house of petitioner and two persons were apprehended on spot, who alleged that petitioner is also involved in the trade of liquor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44657 of 2022(2) dt.14-10-2022 2/2 the instance of her enemies. Her name transpired in this case on the basis of statement of apprehended persons. Petitioner has neither been apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from her conscious physical possession. She has no concern either with the seized liquor or any trade of liquor. Petitioner is a house lady and resides in a joint family house and had no knowledge of liquor being kept in the house. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the recovery has been made from the house of petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge her on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on her behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

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