Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2324 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2024 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Sahani son of Sibodh Sahani villageKagjitola, Ward No. 11, Police Station- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 469 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, acting upon a secret information received the informant reached at the petitioner's house on 13.08.2024 at about 10:00 A.M., and on seeing the police party, the petitioner fled away. A total of 2.25 litres of country made liquor was seized from the house of the petitioner by the police.

4. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2324 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2 connection to the seized liquor and he has been falsely roped in the alleged recovery of liquor and he has fair and clean antecedent and the instant matter relates to the recovery of 2.25 litres of the country made liquor from the west side of the petitioner's house .

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

6. Considering the allegation as to the recovery of alleged seized liquor from the room of the petitioner and the case is under investigation, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly his prayer stands rejected.

7. However, petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the trial court, if he avails this liberty in the next two weeks then the learned trial court will decide his regular bail prayer at the earliest without being prejudiced with this order according to merit.

(Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/- U T