Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Mahto 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.82146 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2023 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH MAHTO S/O ANANDI MAHTO R/O KARRAKH, VADIYA, WARD NO. 1, P.S- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 338 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Excise-Ist, Samastipur.
3. As per the prosecution case, 96 liters of Beer is said to have been recovered from the shop of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82146 of 2023(2) dt.22-12-2023 2/2 no recovery is there from the shop of the petitioner and whatever recovery is shown, that is in absence of the petitioner and this recovery is falsified from the fact that on the seizure list neither neighbours of the petitioner nor any co-villagers put their signature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the illicit Bear is said to have been recovered from the shop of the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that the said recovery has been made from the shop of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T