Hari Ohm Sah @ Hari Ohm Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55186 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2018 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== HARI OHM SAH @ HARI OHM KUMAR Son of Bhola Sah @ Bhola Prasad Resident of Village - Gorari, P.S.- Karakat, District - Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Karakat P.S. Case No.164 of 2018 registered under Section 30(a), 36, 56(d) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant got secret inputs that Arun Pandey and Ashok Yadav were engaged in concealing huge quantity of liquor in guava orchard and on such, a raid was conducted. The informant along with other police officials including Choukidar went there but the accused persons started fleeing away but one of the accused namely, Arun Pandey was apprehended and Choukidar of the village identified Hari ohm Sah(the petitioner), Sunil Kumar, Rajnish Kumar, Amawash Rai and Ashok Yadav who managed to flee away but from there, huge quantity of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55186 of 2019(2) dt.03-09-2019 2/2 liquor was recovered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. From perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that petitioner was found fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with other accused persons and one of the accused, namely, Arun Pandey was apprehended who disclosed that they had got the liquor on a magic vehicle.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T