Jay Jay Mandal vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1209 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31835 of 2020
     Arising Out of PS Case No.-154 Year-2019 Thana- SINGHIA District- Samastipur
======================================================

Jay Jay Mandal, aged about 34 years (Male), Son of Parmeshwar Mahto @ Prameshwar Mahto @ Hareram Mandal, Resident of Village- Kameshwarnagar, Shivajinagar, PS- Hathauri, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-03-2021

Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Singhia PS Case No. 154 of 2019 dated 11.10.2019, instituted

under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner, as per the

statement of the driver of the truck from which 4271.520 litres of

liquor was seized, belonged to him and were to be delivered to

four persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

only the person who was caught has stated the name of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31835 of 2020 dt.02-03-2021

petitioner without him having any connection to the seized liquor.

It was submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot

nor anything has been recovered from his house.

5. Learned APP submitted that the person who was

arrested has taken the name of the petitioner and there is no reason

for any false implication and that the petitioner is the kingpin as

he was the person to whom the liquor belonged.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T