Manorath Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87343 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Manorath Mukhiya, son of late Mauji Mukhiya, Resident of village Brahampuri, Basukibihari, P.S.-Madhwapur, Dist-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2025 Heard Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khurshid Anwar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with G.O. P.S. Case No. 254 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the information received an information that some persons are trying to smuggle wine through Indo-Nepal and recovered 261 litres of illicit liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87343 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2025 2/2 implicated in the present case. As per the averments made in the Paragraph No. 14 of the bail petition, the petitoner has stated that he is living in UAE since 2016 and he has no knowledge about the present occurrence. On the last occasion on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit annexing the passport of the petitioner but till date the petitoner has not filed the supplementary affidavit, which suggests that the averments made in the bail petition is not supported by the any document.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner

6. Considering the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with G.O. P.S. Case No. 254 of 2019 pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise Act, Madhubani.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T