Patna High CourtCR. MISC./81915/2024bail rejected

Naresh Goswami v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-05Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81915 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2024 Thana- JALALGARH District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Naresh Goswami Son of Late Kundu Goswami Resident of Vill- Khatahat, P.S.- Jalalgadh, District- Purnera (Bihar) 2.

Karan Kumar Goswami Son of Naresh Goswami Resident of Vill- Khatahat, P.S.- Jalalgadh, District- Purnera (Bihar) 3.

Gaurav Kumar @ Gaurav Kumar Goswami Son of Naresh Goswami Resident of Vill- Khatahat, P.S.- Jalalgadh, District- Purnera (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 3 namely, Gaurav Kumar has been arrested and as such, wants withdrawal of his prayer.

2. Accordingly, so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the same stands rejected.

3. Heard the parties.

4. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Jalalgadh P.S. Case No. 145 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, lodged on 15.09.2024 by the informant, Md. Nasir Khan.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81915 of 2024(3) dt.05-03-2025 2/2

5. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that upon information, the house of Naresh Goswami was raided, @ Munni Devi @ Kiran Devi was present as also the son-in-law and there is recovery/seizure of 252.750 liters of foreign liquor, this led to the F.I.R.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are father and son, the recovery/seizure is from the house not used by them and have been implicated only because of criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposes the prayer submitting that not only there is recovery from their house, the perusal of para 3 would show that they have criminal antecedent of the same nature.

8. Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that both the petitioners have criminal antecedent of the same nature, it would be appropriate that they seek bail.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T