Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72593/2024dismissed

Antim Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-29Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72593 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2024 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Antim Jha S/o- Raj Kumar Jha village- Kusmaul, P.S.- Rajnagar, DistMadhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumari Pallavi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-11-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 206 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per allegation, on a secret information, the informant along with police party reached the place of occurrence. After seeing the police, the petitioner tried to flee away but he was apprehended. On search, 388.62 liters of illicit liquor was recovered from bag of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that nothing was recovered from his possession. He is not the owner of seized vehicle. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72593 of 2024(2) dt.29-11-2024 2/2 petitioner is under custody since 29.07.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation and also the fact that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents, I do not think it to be a fit case for grant of bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after three months from today, before the court below itself. If the petitioner filed his application for bail, the learned court below shall consider his bail application on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T