Bishundeo Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82743 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Bishundeo Singh, aged 43 years (M), son of Mahesh Singh, resident of Village - Premganj Lalganj, P.S.- Lalganj Distt - East Chamaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with C2A Case No.136 of 2019 dated 16.09.2019 instituted under Sections 30(a), 32(i), (iii), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that from his pickup van 3604.680 litres illicit liquor has been recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not on the pickup van and had no connection with the same. It was further submitted that though the allegation is of recovery of papers relating to ownership of the pickup van in his name, but the pickup van did not belong to him.

5. Learned APP submitted that if the petitioner denies

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82743 of 2019 dt.07-01-2020 2/2 that the vehicle caught did not belong to him, there is no explanation as to how the ownership paper of the vehicle showed him to be the owner, in which all his personal details with regard to parentage and address have been correctly written. It was submitted that if the petitioner has no connection with the entire episode then there cannot be any occasion for his name and details to be found in the pickup van which are correct in all aspects relating to his identity. Learned counsel submitted that, in fact, if the pickup van did not belong to the petitioner and still the ownership paper showed him to be owner, it would be another criminal act on his part as he has to explain with regard to creation of such false ownership document.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/- AFR/NAFR U T