Ashok Chaudhary @ Ashok Kumar Chaudhary @ Mangra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58183 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2024 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ashok Chaudhary @ Ashok Kumar Chaudhary @ Mangra Son of Late Madan Chaudhary Village -Pirapur PS -Jandaha Distt -Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suruchi Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Jandaha Police Station Case No. 469 of 2024, disclosing offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 08.12.2024, during patrolling, the police received secret information that the petitioner has brought consignment of illicit liquor in a truck near Govt. Middle School, Pirapur, and some other persons/liquor traders have also arrived there to buy liquor. The police reached at the place of occurrence and saw that one truck was standing near bamboo plantation and on seeing the police party 4 to 5 persons started

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58183 of 2025(2) dt.22-08-2025 2/2 fleeing away and managed to escape. Upon search, the police recovered 1416.96 liters of illicit liquor from the truck, bearing registration no. BR06-G-7911.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the alleged vehicle involved. There is no independent eyewitness to support the prosecution version.

5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that earlier, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit, petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail for the second time without any changed circumstances and he is having four criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) harshpandey/- U