Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25636/2017dismissed

Nitesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25636 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2017 Thana -MADHUBAN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Nitesh Singh, son of Ramadhar Singh, resident of Village- Madhopur, Police Station- Madhuban, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-07-2017 Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri (Dr.) Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Madhuban P.S. Case No.85 of 2017registered for the offence under Sections 272, 273, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(A), 38(A), 38(B), 38(C) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender, on the plea that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of huge quantity of Indian make foreign liquor was affected from a locked room of the Panchayat Bhawan and falsely, it was indicated that the petitioner was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25636 of 2017 (2) dt.13-07-2017 2/2 involved in carrying said wine and keeping the same and that petitioner after noticing the raiding party fled away. He submits that the petitioner's name was disclosed by unknown person to the police and, as such, a prayer has been made for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.

However, Sri Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam, learned Addl Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself has stated in paragraph-3 of the petition that he is accused in other two cases; one in relation to Excise Act and other in relation to serious offence and 27 of Arms Act.

Considering the nature of accusation as well as the fact that the petitioner is also accused in other two cases, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T