Umesh Rajbanshi @ Umesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45803 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2023 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.
Umesh Rajbanshi @ Umesh Ram Son Of Chandrika Rajbanshi Resident Of Village- Dormora, Police Station- Roh, District- Nawada 2.
Dinesh Rajbanshi Son Of Mantu Rajbanshi Resident Of Village- Dormora, Police Station- Roh, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akbar Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Roh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, pending in the Court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court-2, Nawada.
3. As per the prosecution case, two liters country made liquor, to aluminum utensils and three machines alleged to be used for manufacturing of liquor alleged to have been recovered from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45803 of 2023(2) dt.24-08-2023 2/2 the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that nothing has been recovered either from the conscious possession of the petitioners nor from the house of the petitioners. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners are involved in manufacturing of illicit liquor. Hence, they do not deserved privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T