Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54024/2019dismissed

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

2019-11-20Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 54024 of 2019 Arising Out of PS Case No.-70 Year-2019 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Arjun Singh @ Arjun Kumar Singh, aged about 42 years, (Male) Son of Naresh Singh, Resident of Village- Bhatakahi, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad and Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocates For the State :

Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court seeking prearrest bail in connection with Paroo PS Case No. 70 of 2019 dated 23.02.2019 instituted under Sections 270, 272, 328, 467, 468, 471, 472, 419, 420 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30/30(a)/35(e)/36 and 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Sections 4/6 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. The petitioner along with 14 others are accused of dealing in illicit liquor.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54024 of 2019 dt.20-11-2019 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was neither caught at the spot nor any recovery was made from his conscious possession. It was further submitted that only on the basis of confessional statement of the persons arrested at the spot, he has been made accused.

5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner has criminal cases against him under the Excise Act instituted earlier in the years 2010 and 2012. It was further submitted that huge amount of liquor has been recovered from the spot and the persons caught had disclosed the petitioner also as one of the persons who was involved in such activity.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T