Shankar Yadav @Shankar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56362 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2019 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SHANKAR YADAV @ SHANKAR KUMAR, Son of Late Rama Yadav Resident of Village - Ice Factory Karbigahiya, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 353 of 2019 (Special Case No. 5244 of 2019) registered under Sections 273 and 290/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a), 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, pending in the court of the Special Judge, Excise Act, Patna.

The accusation is that in course of search of the hotel of the petitioner, Gopal Prasad, Rajkumar, Kameshwar yadav, Suman Kumar and Bayom Ranjan Swadhin were found taking liquor, while Shankar Yadav (petitioner) owner of the Magadh Hotel succeeded to flee away. On search, 21 bottles, each containing 180 ML, 8 bottles each containing 750 ML of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56362 of 2019(2) dt.05-09-2019 2/2 Indian made foreign liquor and 15 empty bottles of different brands were recovered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that, in fact, the alleged hotel is not belongs to the petitioner, rather, Ravindra Kumar, brother of the petitioner, is the owner of the said hotel. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T