Munna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67730 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2023 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Munna Yadav S/o Naresh Yadav R/o Village - Pakahi, P.s. - Belaganj, District- Gaya.

2.

Ranjan Yadav @ Gop S/O Chandradeo Yadav @ Chanderdeo Yadav R/o Village - Mubarakpur, P.S. - Belaganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the application of petitioner no. 1 because he is apprehended by the police during pendency of the bail application.

3. The petitioner no. 2 seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Belaganj P.S. Case No. 451 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(c) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Now learned counsel for the petitioners has to press the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 2.

5. As per F.I.R., allegation against the petitioner no. 2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67730 of 2023(3) dt.24-01-2024 2/2 is that he fled away from the place of occurrence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits that 2 litres of soaked Jawa Mahua is seized by the police and 798 litres of Mahua Jawa is destroyed in the place of occurrence. Police also seized two utensils used for making liquor and a gas cylinder which shows that there is use of any manufacturing of illicit liquor. He further submits that no person was apprehended on the spot. Petitioner no. 2 has no criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner no. 2 is a member of syndicate manufacturing of illicit liquor.

8. Considering the aforesaid submission of the parties and also the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2.

9. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

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