Bigni Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62518 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2021 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

BIGNI DEVI Wife of Jindar Bind R/o Sohra Bind Toli, Barahara (Krishnagarh), P.S. and District- Bhojpur.

2.

Geeta Devi Wife of Ravindra Bind @ Motak Bind R/o Sohra Bind Toli, Barhara (Krishnagarh), P.S. and District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-03-2022 Heard the parties through virtual Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, office will place the matter before the Bench. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Barahara (Krishnagarh) P.S. Case No.96/21, registered for the offence punishable under section 30(A)/36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

Altogether 5 litres each of Mahua liquor is said to have been recovered from the houses of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62518 of 2021(2) dt.25-03-2022 2/2 petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. They have been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioners have neither been apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from their conscious physical possession. Petitioners have no concern either with the seized liquor or any trade of liquor. The recovery is said to have been made from the houses of the petitioners but the same has been planted in their house in an attempt to frame them. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of this application. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the recovery has been made from the house of the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners named above.

The prayer for bail is rejected and accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T