Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sudhanshu Kumar Yadav @ Sudhanshu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77972 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-707 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sudhanshu Kumar Yadav @ Sudhanshu Yadav S/oBrahamdev Yadav R/o- Jankidih P.s- Chanan District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mayank Bilochan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-11-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Excise Police Station Case No. 707C2 of 2024, dated 04.08.2024, disclosing offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report, is that the police, on secret information that the petitioner is coming from Bear Chowk towards Vidyapith Chowk carrying illicit liquor on motorcycle, intercepted a motorcycle, bearing registration no. BR01-CT-9096, and upon seeing the police party, the person riding on the motorcycle fled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77972 of 2024(2) dt.26-11-2024 2/2 away leaving the motorcycle behind. Upon search, the police recovered 60 liters of Mahua liquor kept in a jute sack from the motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. He next submits that the motorcycle, in question, does not belong to the petitioner and illicit liquor has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
5. Regards being had to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is having eight criminal antecedents of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T