Firoj Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78191 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== Firoj Sahni Son of Late Kamli Sahni R/O Vill.- Lallu Pokhar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, Dist.- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2024 1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

These applications, for grant of anticipatory bail, arise out of Muffasil PS case no. 291 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 30(a)/32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. 3.

The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that on 07.08.2024 at about 18.20 hours, during patrolling, the informant along with police party reached at Bank More, Near Kali Asthan and started searching vehicle. During checking, he saw one vehicle trying to escape from the police but it was caught and the driver told his name as Ritesh Kumar Yadav. It is alleged that the vehicle was searched and 93.6 liters of foreign liquor was recovered. When the driver was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78191 of 2024(2) dt.03-12-2024 2/2 interrogated, he disclosed that the recovered foreign liquor belonged to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the physical possession of the petitioner and his name has been dragged in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Ritesh Kumar Yadav. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been made accused in 13 cases but he is on bail in all the cases. 5.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is having criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence and appears to be habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U T