Dharmendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82115 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2024 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dharmendra Paswan Son of Bala Paswan Resident of Village- Bhatauli Bhagwan, P.S. - Kartahan, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) and 30 (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner rather 50 liters of country made liquor along with various equipment for brewing illicit liquor are said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence. Petitioner has no concern either with the seized liquor or the place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82115 of 2024(2) dt.11-12-2024 2/2 general and omnibus in nature. The place of recovery is an open place and easily accessible to anyone. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his enemy. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

4. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application submitted that the petitioner along with others are involved in the brewing hooch and he is also the member of the syndicate. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

6. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T