Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80449 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2024 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Ray S/O Binda Ray R/O Vilalge- Phuladh (Phulad) , P.S- Vaishali, Dist.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-12-2024 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 Saraiya Police Station Case No. 32 of 2024, disclosing offence under Sections 272, 273 and 34 of the Indian penal Code and Sections 30(a), 32(2), 32(3), 41(i), 41(2) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant got information that a four wheeler vehicle bearing Reg. No. WB06D-8510 was standing with illegal liquor near Janpriya Dhaba Basuchak. When informant along with police party reached at the place of occurrence they saw the said vehicle was standing there and two persons were apprehended. They disclosed their names as Dipak

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 80449 of 2024(2) dt.09-12-2024 2/2 Kumar and Md. Ashique. On search, total 80.280 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from the said vehicle.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits no incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or vehicle belonging to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said seized vehicle. He next submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on disclosure made by apprehended persons Dipak and Md. Ashique.

5. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is having eight criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence and appears to be habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. The prayer for anticipatory bail, is accordingly, rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T