Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34547 (PAT)

Raju Rajbanshi @ Rajiv Ram v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./24960/2025 · 2025-05-05

Anil Kumar Sinha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24960 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- Kadirganj P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Raju Rajbanshi @ Rajiv Ram S/O Radhe Ram R/O Village- Pachohiya, P.S- Kadirganj, Distt.- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 05-05-2025 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kadirganj PS case no. 53 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 30(a)/ 30(d) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information report, is that 30 liters of illicit countrymade mahua liquor has been recovered from the bank of Sakari river. It is alleged that name of the petitioner has been surfaced in this case on the basis of disclosure made by the local chowkidar. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the place, from where Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24960 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2025 2/2 illicit countrymade mahua liquor has been recovered, does not belong to the petitioner. He also submits that though petitioner is accused in six more cases but he is on bail in all the cases. 5. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, which includes Arms Act, theft, POCSO Act etc., I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. rinkee/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T