Sahdev Chaudhary @ Salim Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4629 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2020 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== SAHDEV CHAUDHARY @ SALIM CHAUDHARY Son of Late Ram Chaudhary Resident of Village- Mahdeva, P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

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. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Hisua P.S. Case no. 362 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 30(a), 30(d) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, on secret information, police has visited Mahadeva village and on seeing the police party, petitioner along with other family members started to fleeing away. Thereafter, police raided the house of the petitioner and a recovery of 20 kg raw mahua and 50 kg of jawa

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4629 of 2021(3) dt.06-12-2021 2/2 Mahua has been made in front of the villagers, which was kept there for preparing country made liquor.

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 stated that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the alleged house belongs to the petitioner, from where recovery of huge quantity of mahua 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 may be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U