Umesh Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50311 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2016 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Umesh Prasad Yadav Son of Late Mahadev Ray R/O Vill.- Baya Dih, P.S.- Saraiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur 2.
Rajdeo Ray Son of Jailal Ray R/O Vill.- Raghunathpur Baya, P.S.- Paroo, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-07-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per prosecution case, 22.500 litres illicit liquor was recovered from the seized pickup van of which these petitioners are registered owner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50311 of 2025(2) dt.29-07-2025 2/2 implicated in this case merely because they happen to be joint owners of the vehicle in question. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of these petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has got no criminal antecedents and Petitioner No. 2 has got three criminal antecedents out of which two are of similar nature in which he is on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the seized vehicle of which these petitioners are registered owners.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that huge quantity of illicit liquor was recovered from the seized vehicle of which these petitioners are registered owners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T