IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87518 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-344 Year-2024 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Mohan Yadav @ Mohan Kumar Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav R/O Village- Bedaul, P.S- Sadar, Distt.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 2 08-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 344 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 3. Altogether 432 litres of foreign liquor has been recovered from bathan belongs to the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner or from his house. He has no concern either with the seized liquor or the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87518 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/2 place of recovery or any trade of liquor. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. His name has been transpired in the present case due to animosity. The bathan from where the alleged recovery has been made is an open place and easily accessible to anyone and hence, petitioner had no knowledge of keeping of the said liquor in his bathan. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has four criminal antecedents out of which three are in similar nature of offence that of the present case as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the place of recovery and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. divyanshi/- (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) U T