Indrajeet Mukhiya @ Indrajit Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86943 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2024 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Indrajeet Mukhiya @ Indrajit Mukhiya S/O Lalbahadur Mukhiya @ Lalbabu Mukhiya Resident of Village- Koirgawan Bin Toli, P.S.- Sangrampur, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025

1. 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 Sangrampur Police Station Case No. 35 of 2024, dated 11.02.2024, disclosing offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the police, on secret information that illicit liquor is being manufactured and sold in village Koirgawan Bin Toli, proceeded towards the village and on seeing the police, some persons fled away. The Chowkidar disclosed the name of the petitioner and other accused persons who fled away from the place of occurrence. On search, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86943 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2025 2/2 police recovered 57 litres of illicit country made liquor kept in front of the house of co-accused Chandrama Mahto on a motorcycle.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure of his name by the Chowkidar. He further submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the motorcycle in question and the petitioner is not having any connection with the co-accused Chandrama Singh.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in fourteen criminal cases of similar nature.

6. Regards being had to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties concerned and taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √