Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4494 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2020 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

MUKESH KUMAR SON OF BIJALI RAI @ RAM DULAR RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SABNIMA BURAHARA, P.S.- ATHAMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA.

2.

CHANDU KUMAR YADAV S/O BIJALI RAI @ RAM DULAR RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SABNIMA BURAHARA, P.S.- ATHAMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Usha Kumari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Nayaram Nagar P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020 registered under Sections 30(a)/32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner no.1 is owner of the truck and petitioner no. 2 is brother of petitioner no.1. Further he submits that petitioners have no concern with the seized illegal wine. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 4494 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2022 2/2 petitioners are named in the first information report. Further he submits that it is specifically stated in the first information report by the truck driver that the petitioner no. 1 is owner of the said truck and petitioner no. 2 is his brother, who has brought the illegal seized wine from the said truck. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected. shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T