Pramod Rajbanshi @ Pramod Raj Bangshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5600 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2020 Thana- PARASI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== PRAMOD RAJBANSHI @ PRAMOD RAJ BANGSHI SON OF CHANGELI RAJBANSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAXAMANPUR BATHE, PS-PARSAI, DISTRICT-ARWAL. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 26-11-2021 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Parasi P.S. Case no. 57 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, in course of night patrolling, police has reached to the house of the petitioner and started to raid it. On seeing the police party, petitioner managed to escape. In presence of co-villagers, 25 litres of country made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5600 of 2021(2) dt.26-11-2021 2/2 liquor was found from his house.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has got no criminal antecedent. Neither the petitioner was arrested on spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner is owner of the alleged house, from where recovery of illegal liquor has been made, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U