Mini Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69370 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Mini Manjhi S/O Late Sitaram Manjhi R/O Village- Rukanpura Musahari, PS- Rupaspur, District- Patna 2.

Leriya Devi @ Smt. Lerza Devi W/O MIni Manjhi R/O Village- Rukanpura Musahari, PS- Rupaspur, District- Patna 3.

Chintu Manjhi S/O Mini Manjhi R/O Village- Rukanpura Musahari, PSRupaspur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioners.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Rupaspur P.S. Case No.187 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioners rather 55 liters of country made liquor is said to have been recovered from the house of the petitioners. Petitioners have no concern either with the seized liquor or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69370 of 2024(2) dt.17-10-2024 2/2 general and omnibus in nature. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of their enemy by planting the aforesaid recovery. Petitioner no.1 has one criminal antecedent, whereas petitioner nos.2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

5. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T