Kriti Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66686 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Kriti Yadav Son of Late Raghunath Ray Resident of Village - Dharampur P.S. - Samastipur Muffasil, Dist. - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anish Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 437 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, there is a recovery of 950.49 litres of illicit liquor from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged liquor as it was recovered from the room adjacent to Zakir Hussain's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66686 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 2/2 house. His name has been figured from the confessional statement of the co-accused namely Zakir Hussain. He further submits that petitioner has not been arrested from spot. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2025 having three antecedent of similar nature.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the FIR and impugned order dated 23.08.2025, it appears that the alleged recovery was not made from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather it was recovered from the room adjacent to Zakir Hussain's house. Moreover, there is no independent witness to the seizure list. So, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise) 1st, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 437 of 2020. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Sunnykr/- U