Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./4494/2021
Accused named in FIR and specifically identified by witnesses are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 30(a)/32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioners claimed innocence and denied involvement in the seizure of illegal wine.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail, finding that they were named in the FIR and that the truck driver had specifically stated that the first petitioner was the owner of the truck and the second petitioner was his brother who had brought the illegal wine from the truck.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail as they were named in the FIR and the truck driver had specifically stated that the first petitioner was the owner of the truck and the second petitioner was his brother who had brought the illegal wine from the truck.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4494 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2020 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger
======================================================
1.
MUKESH KUMAR SON OF BIJALI RAI @ RAM DULAR RAY
RESIDENT
OF
VILLAGE-SABNIMA
BURAHARA,
P.S.-
ATHAMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA.
2.
CHANDU KUMAR YADAV S/O BIJALI RAI @ RAM DULAR RAY
RESIDENT
OF
VILLAGE-SABNIMA
BURAHARA,
P.S.-
ATHAMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Usha Kumari Singh
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6
13-01-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Nayaram Nagar P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020 registered under
Sections 30(a)/32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
the present case. Petitioner no.1 is owner of the truck and
petitioner no. 2 is brother of petitioner no.1. Further he submits
that petitioners have no concern with the seized illegal wine.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 4494 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2022
2/2
petitioners are named in the first information report. Further he
submits that it is specifically stated in the first information
report by the truck driver that the petitioner no. 1 is owner of the
said truck and petitioner no. 2 is his brother, who has brought
the illegal seized wine from the said truck. Hence, the
petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State,
this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected.
shailendra/-
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
U
T
