Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7894 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-600 Year-2020 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== ANIL SINGH @ ANIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE MAHENDRA SINGH R/O VILL.- DARIYAPUR, P.O.- BHAISWAN, P.S.- MASAURHI, DIST.- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prashant Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 01-02-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

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 Masaurhi P.S. Case no. 600 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Prosecution case relates to recovery of 1458 litres of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7894 of 2021(3) dt.01-02-2022 2/2 IMFL from rice mill. The alleged rice mill belongs to the mother of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged rice mill has been sealed on 7.7.2017 by the Certificate Officer-cum-Subdivisional Officer, Masaurhi. Petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. Neither the petitioner was arrested on spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious and constructive possession.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that from perusal of para 119 of the case diary it appears that place of occurrence relates to the petitioner from where huge quantity of liquor has been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U