Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10958/2017rejected

Munna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-16Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10958 of 2017 (2) dt.16-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10958 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -225 Year- 2016 Thana -SINGHESHWARASHTHAN DistrictMADHEPURA ====================================================== Munna Yadav, Son of Suresh Prasad Yadav @ Suresh Yadav, resident of Village- Rampatti, Police Station- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Veena Kumari Jaiswal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 225 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(A) and 38 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegedly, in the hotel of the petitioner at table one bottle of Royal Stag foreign liquor containing 375 ml was found and further from beneath the bed six pieces of empty bottles of Royal Stag were recovered and the Staff of the petitioner stated that the petitioner has kept the liquor on the table to drink along with his associates.

Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10958 of 2017 (2) dt.16-03-2017 petitioner was not present in the hotel, his name has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Dipu Ram and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP submits that Dipu Ram is non-else but the staff of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T