Rahul Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74237 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2024 Thana- PARSA District- Saran ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Ray Son of Baleshwar Ray Resident of Village - Anjani Mathiya, P.S. - Parsa, District - Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 270 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Altogether 4.125 litres of foreign liquor has been recovered from bathroom of the petitioner's house.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. He has no concern either with the seized liquor or the place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74237 of 2024(2) dt.28-10-2024 2/2 false and based on concocted facts. He was not apprehended on the spot. His name has been transpired in the present case due to animosity. The house 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. It is further submitted that petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence that of the present case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the alleged recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him 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