← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65127/2019rejected

Narendra v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65127 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

NARENDRA Son of Lena Singh Resident of Village- Gohana, P.S.- Beroda, District- Sonipat, (Haryana).

2.

Manoj Kumar Son of Gulab Singh Resident of Village- Malar Teh Safidan, Police Station- Pillu Kheda, District- Jind,(Haryana). 3.

Rabindra Son of Ajmer Singh Resident of Village- Gohana, P.S.- Beroda, District- Sonipat, (Haryana).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Excise Case No. 258 of 2019 registered under sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to oblique and ulterior motive. Petitioners are in custody since 08.08.2019. Further submission is that petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65127 of 2019(2) dt.23-10-2019 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that huge quantity of liquor (2660.400 Ltrs.) has been recovered from the vehicle in question. Petitioners are Driver and Assistant Driver of the alleged vehicle. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T