Manish Sonar @ Manish Kumar Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81116 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2018 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== MANISH SONAR @ MANISH KUMAR SONI Son of Mahendra Seth Resident of Village - Hatta, P.S.- Chainpur, Distt - Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Excise Case No. 688 of 2018 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act. As per allegation in the FIR, 1.620 litres of IMFL was seized from the dickey of a parked motorcycle. It appears that in course of investigation it transpired that although the motorcycle is registered in the name of mother of the petitioner, however, the same was being driven by this petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of recovery is false and concocted. No recovery as alleged has taken place. The petitioner was not caught at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81116 of 2019(2) dt.10-12-2019 2/2 place of occurrence. He is in custody since 16.09.2019 and as per information received, charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State by submitting that petitioner has two other cases pending against him both under the Excise Act and, as such, this is not a fit case for grant him bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that two cases under the Excise Act are pending against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. However, if so advised, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completing six months in custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T