Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4898/2024bail rejected

Pankaj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-07Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4898 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2022 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav S/O VIJAY YADAV @ VIJAY KUMAR VILLAGEKALHATTA, PS. MIRGANJ, DIST. GOPALGANJ. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vyas Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 400 of 2022 lodged under section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.

3. As per the prosecution case, the total recovery of 93.4 liter wine has alleged to be made, which is subject matter of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that from the seizure list, it transpires that recovery of wine has not been made from conscious possession of the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are ten criminal cases pending against the petitioner. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4898 of 2024(2) dt.07-02-2024 2/2 submits that petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2023 and charge-sheet has already been filed in this case.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are ten criminal cases pending against the petitioner and most of the cases relating to excise matter and some are either under Arms Act or murder.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail three months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T