The Patna High Court recently rejected the bail plea of petitioner Sanjiv Kumar Rai, accused of the huge transaction of 2529 Litres of liquor.
Ramachandra Singh, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that, the said truck bearing Registration No. RJ-19GD-7254 is registered in the name of one Mohan Ram Bishnoi and the driver of the said truck has also been accused in the case and that the confession on which the arrest of the petitioner was based, made by the driver of the truck in police custody has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
APP Ajit Kumar, on behalf of the state, submitted that, out of altogether 13 cases against the petitioner, three cases have been registered under the provision of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The name of the petitioner was taken by the driver who was in a condition to give correct information about the person and place where the huge transaction of liquor was to be delivered.
It was further submitted that, the petitioner, against whom prima facie a case of smuggling is made out will engage in smuggling as such and it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail.
From the allegation made in the First Investigation Report(FIR), it appeared to the Court that the driver of the truck had taken the name of the petitioner and that the huge consignment of liquor was to be delivered to the petitioner.
A relevant submission was made by Vikash Kumar, for the State on the lack of cooperation by the GST Council in this regard.
The Single Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh observed that, “There is no chance of the trial of the present case to be concluded in the near future and the other co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. have already been released on bail. From the allegation made in the F.I.R., it appears that the driver of the truck has taken the name of the petitioner and that the huge consignment of liquor was to be delivered to the petitioner. Petitioner has 13 criminal antecedents and it will not be in the interest of the society to release the petitioner on bail.”
The liberty of the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of 11 months from the date of this order, was conserved by the Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
