Umesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58227 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2019 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Umesh Singh, Aged about 60 years, Male, Son of Late Kanhai Singh, Resident of Village Rojapar, P.S. and District Arwal. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Paras Nath For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Arwal P.S. Case No.150 of 2019, giving rise to Excise Case No.625 of 2019, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The informant got information that Dheeraj Kumar, Babulal Singh and Umesh Singh used to sell liquor and they had brought huge quantity of liquor on an auto rickshaw parked in front of their house. On such information, raid was conducted. The auto rickshaw was found parked in front of the house and three persons were unloading the cartons. Huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the auto rickshaw and the house of the petitioner was also searched. Petitioner was found absconding from his house and from the latrine of the house of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58227 of 2019(2) dt.18-09-2019 2/2 the petitioner, liquor was recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of course the brother of Babulal Singh but petitioner is living separately. Petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence but it appears that Dheeraj Kumar is the son of Babulal Singh and the petitioner and Babulal Singh are brothers. They all had brought huge quantity of liquor on an auto rickshaw and liquor was also recovered from the latrine of the house of the petitioner.

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

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T