Bhushan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63032 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2022 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Bhushan Yadav Son Of Late Siyaram Yadav Resident Of Village - Paigamberpur Mekaratole, Ward No.- 09, Nagar Panchayat Teghara, P.S.- Teghara, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E.C.

Act pending in the learned court below.

Allegation against the petitioner is that 72 bag of illegal urea is said to have been seized from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the said urea does not belong to the petitioner but belongs to farmers/villagers and he enclosed the Aadhar Card and application before the concerned authority to release the said seized Urea. He submits that from perusal of the FIR there was present some women's have stated to the Block

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63032 of 2022(3) dt.14-03-2023 2/2 Agriculture Officers, Teghara that the local farmer's have recovered money instead of Urea from Shri Navnit Kediya @ Baloo son of late Shri Shivnarayan Kediya. He submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that the said Urea belongs to the villagers/farmers. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with A.B.A. No.1814/2022 (Teghara P.S. Case No. 38/2022). Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass the order, preferably, on the same day, without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) kamlesh/- U T