Satyendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75403 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2013 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Satyendra Singh Son of Late Ram Surat Singh Village- Nonar PS- Ramgarh District- Kaimur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2024
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Excise Case No. 50 of 2013, disclosing offences under Sections 47(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915.
3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information, the informant along with other officials, conducted raid at Balpur Brick Bhatta. On seeing the police party, the accused persons fled away. On search, altogether 225 Kilogram Jawa Mahua and 10 liters of illicit liquor was recovered.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive at the instance of the enemies of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75403 of 2024(2) dt.18-11-2024 2/2 He further submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and petitioner is not the owner of any brick kiln. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged hut and he has been made scapegoat without any iota of evidence. He further submits that since the institution of the prosecution, no summon has been made against the petitioner and he got the information about issuing of bailable warrant against him on June, 2024.
5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of eleven years, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T