Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75209/2019rejected

Govind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2019-12-02Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75209 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-449 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Govind Singh Son of Late Dina Nath Singh Resident of Village - Shital Bigha, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Chandra Bhaskar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 02-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of bail in a case registered for the offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per the allegation in the FIR, 68.92 litres of liquor have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. It transpires from paragraph no. 3 of the petition that one another case being Complaint Case no. 641 of 2019 dated 06.06.2019 also under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is pending against the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that contrary to the allegation, nothing has been recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75209 of 2019(3) dt.02-12-2019 2/2 possession of the petitioner, who has been falsely implicated in the two cases.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail submitting that recovery in the instant case has taken place from the house of the petitioner and this is the second case under the Excise Act against him.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as also pendency of one another case under the Excise Act against this petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such his application for bail is rejected. However, in the instant case, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of six months in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U