Ramjee Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40977 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2020 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas ====================================================== RAMJEE SINGH Son of Gopaljee Singh Resident of Village- Sujayatpur, P.S- Dhansoi, District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 02-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Dinara P.S. Case no. 246 of 2020 registered under sections 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, over 10,000 litres of illicit liquor is stated to have been recovered from five vehicles and the petitioner and two others were taken into custody from near the place of occurrence.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor resident of the area and has no concern either with the incriminating article or any of the vehicles. He is in custody since 23.8.2020 and investigation in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40977 of 2020(2) dt.02-03-2021 2/2 the case has concluded.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that while the petitioner is a resident of District Buxar, the occurrence is of District Rohtas together with the recovery of over 10,000 litres of illicit liquor and that the petitioner has an antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such the prayer is rejected for the present.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U