Tulsi Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16337 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2012 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Tulsi Rai, Son of Brahamdeo Rai, Resident of Village- Thenpur Police Station- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Amresh Sri Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Dinesh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard Sri Amresh, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 18.1.2018 on being remanded from an another case, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 179 of 2012, G.R. No. 2001 of 2012, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 290, 291, 270, 272 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case whereas , Sri Dinesh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statement made in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16337 of 2018(3) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 paragraph no. 3 of the petition to show that petitioner is a habitual offender for commission of offence under Excise Act and earlier he was made accused in more than one case relating to Excise Act. He further submits that despite the fact that petitioner was named in the present case, which was lodged in the year 2012, he could be remanded in the present case only in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in most of the cases he has been granted bail and in one of the cases he has got acquittal order.

Be that as it may, considering the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition, which depicts that petitioner was accused in number of cases as well as the fact that petitioner was F.I.R. named accused in the year 2012 and he could be remanded only in the year 2018 , there is no reason to pass favourable order.

The prayer for bail stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T