Chhotu Singh @ Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Basantpur PS Case No. 11 of 2020 dated 11.01.2020 instituted under Sections

272/273/308/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The allegation against the petitioner and 10 others is of dealing in illicit liquor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither caught at the spot nor the vehicle from which the recovery was made

belongs to him. It was submitted that the driver and khalasi of the vehicle who were caught had taken the name of the petitioner along with 8 other

persons, as the persons for whom liquor was brought and they are alleged to have run away on seeing the police. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner had altercation with the arrested driver a day earlier and he had threatened him that he would settle the score and, thus, getting an

opportunity he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further

submitted that co-accused Manoj Rai has been granted bail. However, he was not in a position to show to the Court details with regard to the said

order.

Learned APP submitted that 216 litres of illicit wine has been recovered and the police had found 8-10 persons standing near the vehicle from

which recovery has been made and who had run away on seeing the police and the petitioner being one of them was confirmed by the two arrested

persons, including the driver of the pick-up. He further submitted that the defence of there being altercation a day earlier is unfit to be believed for the

reason that if there is altercation between two unknown persons, there cannot be any question of the persons knowing the full name and parentage of

each other. It was submitted that there being prohibition in the State of Bihar when the law prohibits such trade, the petitioner indulging in such trade,

cannot be said to be innocent.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to allow the

prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.