Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46421/2019rejected

Sunil Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-16Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46421 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2019 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== SUNIL RAI Son of Modi Rai Resident of Village - Jakhara, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.60 of 2019 registered under Section 30(a), 47 and 41(2)(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The informant got secret information that Dilip Rai and the petitioner had brought English wine to sell and on such, the informant went to the place of occurrence but seeing the police, five persons managed to flee away. The Choukidar identified the petitioner and Dilip Rai who managed to flee away. From the place of occurrence, huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is said to have been identified by the Choukidar and there is no other material to show the involvement of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46421 of 2019(4) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 petitioner but it appears that Bittu Kumar, the apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner and from Jeep and other vehicles parked near the place of occurrence, huge quantity of liquor was recovered. It has come during the course of investigation that the petitioner along with other accused persons are indulged in transporting liquor and illegal sale in the market.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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