Vaibhav Kumar @ Vaibhav Bardhan @ Bittu Kumar @ Bittu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5620 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2018 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== VAIBHAV KUMAR @ VAIBHAV BARDHAN @ BITTU KUMAR @ BITTU SINGH S/o Mirtunjay Kumar R/o village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Nawkothi, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Navkothi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on secret information that the named accused persons including this petitioner brought huge quantity of liquor, the informant reached at the given place and recovered huge quantity of liquor from the house of Kamlesh Singh and Dheeraj Singh. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5620 of 2021(2) dt.16-04-2021 2/2 submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the seized illicit liquor and place of recovery. The petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2020.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is accused in 6 cases and out of those 6 cases, 4 cases are of similar nature and it appears that the petitioner is getting involved in similar kind of offences.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the kind of criminal antecedent this petitioner has and on finding that he is getting involved in similar kind of offences while being on bail in some of the cases, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within 9 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.