Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56158 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Raj Kumar S/o Ranjit Prasad @ Ranjit Bhagat, Resident of Village- Shitalpur P.S.- Chakia Dist- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No.307 of 2025 instituted under Section 317(5) of B.N.S., 2023, Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information that petitioner on WagorR Car bearing Registration No. BR-01DJ-7849 brought illicit liquor and kept it on the road near his house, the police team to verify the same conducted raid and after seeing the police, the petitioner who was sitting on the vehicle in question tried to flee away but was apprehended on the spot and from the said WagonR car total 345.6 litre illicit foreign liquor and one country made pistol were recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56158 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. He further submits that petitioner has no concern with the seized material and no incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious possession. He further submits that the place from where the recovery has been made is an open place and does not belongs to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he was not driving the said car. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2025, having one criminal antecedent of similar nature, in which he is on bail and charge sheet has already been submitted in this case after completion of investigation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is recovery of huge quantity i.e. 345.6 litre illicit foreign liquor from the car on which petitioner was sitting and he was apprehended from the said car when he tried to flee away. He further submits that country made pistol was also recovered from the said car and the car itself is stolen car. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering submissions made on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56158 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 3/3 parties, facts and circumstances of the case and the recovery of huge quantity of illicit liquor and also the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U T