Bhim Turha vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/272/273/290 IPC, Sections 47(a) of the Excise Act and Sections 51/63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In fact, there is no recovery of any illicit liquor or chemical from the house of the petitioner. Though the alleged recovery is said to have been made at 2.15 P.M, yet there is no signature of any independent witness in the seizure list. The entire story made out in the F.I.R is concocted. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P while opposing the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that there is recovery of illicit Mahua liquor kept in four blue colour gallons of 30 Liters each, 5 Liters chemical kept in a white colour gallon along with huge quantity of empty English wine bottles, wrappers from the house of the petitioner. Hence, he may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No. 83/2020.

Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.