Bhunnu Yadav @ Tunu @ Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61929 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2024 Thana- Panchanpur District- Gaya ====================================================== Bhunnu Yadav @ Tunu @ Arvind Kumar Son of Jagdish Yadav Resident of Village- Malsari, P.S. Panchanpur, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-08-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Panchanpur P.S. Case No.13/2024, registered for an offence under section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The learned APP Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad at the outset submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that petitioner had moved this court seeking anticipatory bail application by filing Cr. Misc. No.39292 of 2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 28.06.2024 with a condition that in the event, if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the anticipatory bail bond of the petitioner shall not be accepted. The learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61929 of 2024(2) dt.31-08-2024 2/2 APP thus submits that the anticipatory bail bond of the petitioner was not accepted for the reason that he had obtained bail by concealing his criminal antecedent. It is thus submitted that a person who does not approach the court with clean hands should be dealt sternly.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned APP.
5. The Court thus is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T