IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12007 of 2010 Shankar Chaudhary, son of Late Ram Binay Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Bakhara, P.S. Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur …………………………………….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar …………………………..Opposite Party. With Cr.Misc. No.13867 of 2010 Pappu Chaudhary @ Pappu Kumar Choudhary, resident of Village- Bakhara, P.S. Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. ……….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ………………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12007 of 2010 : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur,Advocate For the State : Mr. B. P. Singh, A.P.P. For the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13867 of 2010 : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate. Mr. A. K. Lal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 05. 05. 2010. Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, the petitioners of both the cases are specifically named in the F.I.R. as accused. Co-accused Dhiraj Chaudhary was apprehended by the Police on the spot and on his confession huge quantity of country liquor and equipments for manufacturing such liquor were seized by the Police, which have been detailed in the F.I.R. and seizure list vide Annexure-1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Shankar Chaudhary submits that in fact there was no recovery of any incriminating article from his house and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Pappu Chaudhary @ Pappu Kumar Choudhary submits that recovery of country liquor and other articles are not in huge quantity and therefore, his case is also distinguishable from the case of co- accused Santosh Choudhary, who is said to be main culprit. Be that as it may, in view of serious nature of allegation and in view of the fact that huge quantity of country liquor and equipment for manufacturing the same have been seized, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioners must surrender in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 225/09 within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudice by the present order. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)