Naresh Kumar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61951 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2019 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

NARESH KUMAR MEHTA Son of Mohan Mehta Resident of VillageSitapur, P.S.- Karjain, District- Supaul. 2.

Narayan Mehta Son of Late Raghunandan Mehta Resident of VillageSitapur, P.S.- Karjain, District- Supaul. 3.

Prem Mehta Son of Mohan Mehta Resident of Village- Lalmanpatti, P.S.- Ratanpura, District- Supaul.

4.

Ganesh Mehta Son of Late Saryug Mehta Resident of Village- Lalmanpatti, P.S.- Ratanpura, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-09-2019 Petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with S.T. Excise 155 of 2019, arising out of Karjain P.S. Case No. 26 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(A) and 37B of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

As per FIR police intercepted one vehicle and apprehended one person, who disclosed the names of the petitioners stating that petitioner No.1 is driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and on search of vehicle 288 litres of liquor has been recovered and names of petitioners also appear in the disclosure

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61951 of 2019(2) dt.30-09-2019 2/2 made by the co-accused.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that except petitioner No.1, there is nothing against other petitioners except confessional statement and they have no criminal antecedent and petitioner No.1 has falsely been implicated only on suspicion.

Heard learned APP also, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner No.1 is ownercum-driver of the vehicle. In view of above facts and circumstances, let petitioners in the court below and on surrender the court below shall verify the above submission and if it is found to be true, the court below shall release the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 on bail to its own satisfaction, otherwise they have to pray for regular bail. And so far petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has to surrender and pray for regular bail.

This application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T