Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45593/2025bail granted

Raju Kumar @ Raju Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-17Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45593 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Raju Kumar @ Raju Kumar Ray Son of Dinesh Rai @ Dinesh Ray R/O Vill.- Bakhari Kesho, P.S.- Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, 112.590 liters liquor was recovered from poultry farm.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45593 of 2025(2) dt.17-07-2025 2/2 for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not arrested on spot rather his name has transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by local chowkidar. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the poultry farm. The petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T