Satish Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38001 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2018 Thana- AJAMNAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Satish Ravidas, Son of Megh Ravidas, Resident of Village - Pindhal, P.S. - Azamnagar (Salmari O.P.), District Katihar.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Harish Chandra Patel, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-07-2018 Heard Sri Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Azamnagar (Salmari O.P.) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2018 registered for offence under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to the F.I.R., submits that despite the fact that a search was conducted in the house of petitioner, the police had not seen anyone nor, anyone was seen fleeing away, however from the house of the petitioner, recovery of about 4.200 litres of Indian

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38001 of 2018(2) dt.04-07-2018 2/2 Make Foreign Liquor was shown and the petitioner has falsely been arrayed as accused. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Besides this, it has been argued that peitioner is having clean antecedent, which fact has been stated in paragraph -3 of the petition.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that from perusal of F.I.R., it is evident that police got some secret information that petitioner was indulged in sale of liquor and thereafter, raid was conducted and from his premises, recovery was affected.

In view of facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T