Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20051 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2017 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Singh S/o Late Ganga Sagar Singh, R/o VillagePipra, P.S.- Mairwa, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 19-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30, 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for recovery of 48 bottles of 180 ml. each of illicit liquor from a Scorpio vehicle which he was boarding and he escaped after seeing the police party. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is involved in five other cases being (1) Mairwa P.S. Case No.135/2013 registered under Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 of the Arms Act, (2) Mairwa P.S. Case No.184/2013 registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C., (3) Siwan Muffasil
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20051 of 2018(2) dt.19-04-2018 2/2 (Dhanauti O.P.) P.S. Case No.173/2017 registered under Sections 272, 273 of I.P.C. and Section 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, (4) Guthani P.S. Case No. 266/2017 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 and 273 of the I.P.C and Sections 30(A), 38(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and (5) Mairwa P.S. Case No. 231/2017 registered under Sections 272, 273, 308, 420/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 30(a), 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, this application stands rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay/- U T