Prabhat Singh @ Prabhath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3580 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    A.B.A. No.5323 of 2021
                               ------

Prabhat Singh @ Prabhath Singh .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

     For the Petitioner         : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate
     For the State              : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P
                                      ------
     Order No.03 Dated- 23.09.2021
           Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Gorhar P.S. Case No.28 of 2019 registered under Sections 272, 273, 278, 290, 414, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47 (a) of the Excise Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a hardened criminal, was involved in racket of inter State transportation of wine as wine is banned in the State of Bihar and the petitioner used to help the co-accused persons in transporting the illegal wine. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is involved in eight other cases but he has been acquitted in four cases but the petitioner could arrange judgments of two cases in which he has been acquitted. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence and as per the driver, the wine belongs to one Sandip Bhadani. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in racket of inter State transportation of wine to the States where there is ban on sell of wine. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as his criminal antecedent, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/