Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59588/2024bail rejected

Om Prakash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-20Mr. Justice Khatim Reza2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59588 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Om Prakash Yadav, aged about 38 years, Male, S/O Sitaram Yadav, R/O Village- Dhobopur Bansara, P.S- Hayaghat, Distt.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 20-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Excise PS Case No.390 of 2024 dated 26.05.2024, instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. The allegation is of recovery of 127.200 litres foreign liquor from Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration no. BR 01 BQ 1000, which belongs to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner had no knowledge about the liquor loaded on the vehicle. At the time of search and seizure, the driver of the vehicle fled away from the spot. Lastly, it is submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59588 of 2024(3) dt.20-11-2024 2/2 the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable since recovery of liquor has been made from the vehicle of the petitioner.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

7. The application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) J. Alam/- U T