← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30841/2018rejected

Parwez Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2018-06-26Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30841 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2017 Thana- Mirganj District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Parwez Alam, son of Late Haji Wazuddin Ansari, Resident of VillageRasulpur, Police Station- Hathua, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

26-06-2018 Heard Sri Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Indu Kumari Srivastava, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Mirganj P.S. Case No. 105 of 2017 registered for offence under Sections 272 & 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has drawn my attention to statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition to show that petitioner is having clean antecedent. He further submits that nothing was recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and petitioner has falsely been made accused, as if, from his motorcycle, liquor was shown to be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30841 of 2018(3) dt.26-06-2018 2/2 recovered.

However, after going through the F.I.R., it is evident that one motorcycle was intercepted and the person, who was driving motorcycle, fled away and from that motorcycle, recovery was effected. During investigation, the fact has come that petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle. In view of the fact that petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle, from where recovery was effected, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T