Sulekha Devi v. The State Of Bihar
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81696 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SULEKHA DEVI W/o Bajrangi Manjhi R/o vill - Kamtachak, P.S. - Gopalpur, Distt. - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather 35 liters of country made liquor is said to have recovered from joint house of the petitioner. He further submits that co-accused namely Kishori Manjhi who was arrested at the place of the occurrence is fatherin-law of the petitioner and as such he lives in a joint house. He submits that there is no recovery made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81696 of 2023(2) dt.22-12-2023 2/2 labour and earns for her livelihood. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the recovery is made from the joint house of the petitioner. Therefore, she does not deserve bail.
5. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that the recovery is made form the joint house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2020. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T