Patna High CourtCR. MISC./873/2021rejected

Surendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.873 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2020 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Surendra Rai Son of Late Ramkalewar Rai, Resident of Village - Hanuman Nagar Chakki, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rajepur P.S. Case No.121 of 2020 registered under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant (S.H.O. of Rajepur P.S.) alleged that after having received secret information that Ashok Rai and Surendra Rai (petitioner) kept foreign liquor in their house, the police raided the house of the accused persons. 162 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of Ashok Rai and about 83 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of Indian made foreign liquor was made from a joint

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.873 of 2021(2) dt.02-03-2021 2/2 house and the petitioner is not solely responsible for the same. The petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and nothing is said to have been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner but it appears from perusal of the F.I.R. itself that about 83 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T