Pappu Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9997 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-561 Year-2020 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Pappu Das son of Late Ram Dayal Das R/o Village- Atardah, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case no. 561 of 2020 registered under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the F.I.R., on information having been received, it is stated that a raid was conducted in the house of Sujeet Kumar. While Sujeet Kumar managed to escape, 81 litres of IMFL was recovered from his house and the petitioner was arrested on the spot.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating article has been recovered from his person

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9997 of 2021(2) dt.08-06-2021 2/2 or possession. He has no concern either with co-accused Sujeet Kumar or with the seized article. He is in custody since 4.10.2020.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner has an antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case together with the petitioner having antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the same is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U