Dhiraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 13-10-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

As per prosecution case, the petitioner was driving a Indigo Car bearing Registration No. JH-10S-0456 from which total 240 litre illicit country made liquor was recovered. Although, the petitioner was apprehended on the spot but he fled away taking the benefit of congestion which took place at the place of occurrence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner. Learned

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9416 of 2025(3) dt.13-10-2025 2/3

¶18

counsel submits that the name of petitioner has been implicated in this case due to his criminal antecedents of similar nature, in which he is on bail. He further submits that petitioner was passerby when the incident took place and he has no concern either with the alleged seized liquor or with the seized vehicle. Learned counsel submits that petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender involved in the business of illicit liquor having two criminal antecedents of similar nature. He further submits that huge quantity of 240 litre illicit country made liquor was recovered from the concerned vehicle and the petitioner had fled away from the spot, therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. He also 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.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the criminal antecedents of similar nature as well as the nature of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9416 of 2025(3) dt.13-10-2025 3/3

¶22

allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected.

¶23

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

¶24

Ritik/-

¶25

U T

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devesh Malviya Vs The State of Bihar

Balindra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Chaurasia Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sandeep Vs The State of Bihar

Aakash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar