IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41374 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== Shiv Pukar Ray son of Late Amar Nath Ray Resident of Ramjee Chak Digha, Petrol Pump, Bata Ganj, Dinapur-cum-Khagaul, P.S -Digha, Dist- patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 01-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 470 of 2024, instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act. 3. There is recovery of 27.58 litre foreign liquor from the Moped motorcycle of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case being owner of the said motorcycle. Nothing has been recovered from the physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no concern with the seized liquor. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent. He undertakes to co-operate in the investigation and trial. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41374 of 2025(3) dt.01-09-2025 2/2 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is owner of the said motorcycle from which recovery of illicit liquor has been made. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature. He further submits that in view of Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.), prima facie, case is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is owner of the said vehicle from which recovery of illicit liquor has been made and there is no proper explanation in this regard on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner is rejected. rakhi/- (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U T