Chinta Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72939 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-675 Year-2023 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Chinta Manjhi w/o - Suraj Manjhi R/o Village- Masarhi, Mushari, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinod Pandey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 675 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a), 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Altogether 5 litres of Mahua wine has been recovered from the courtyard of the petitioner's house.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern either with the seized liquor or the place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72939 of 2024(2) dt.24-10-2024 2/2 the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. Her name has been transpired in the present case due to enmity. The courtyard from where the alleged recovery has been made is a joint family house and the same is inhabited by several family members and therefore, petitioner had no knowledge of keeping of the said liquor in the house. She was not apprehended on the spot. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para of the bail application.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge her on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T