IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7170 of 2011 RAJIV KUMAR @ RAJIV KUMAR RANJAN, SON OF GANESH CHOUDHARY ------- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.4.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. The accusation is that 20 liters of illicit Mahua and 200 Kgs. of water-soaked Mahua were recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure was made on 14.10.2006, whereas the prosecution report was sent to the learned S.D.J.M. on 9.1.2007, whereas the cognizance was taken in 2007 and the N.B.W. has been issued on 16.8.2010. It is further submitted that the recovery has been made from the joint family of the house of the petitioner and the petitioner is a student. The delay in transmission of the prosecution report definitely clouds the bona fide of the accusation. Since the petitioner has prayed for bail after four years of the institution of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Let the learned court below consider the regular - 2 - bail application of the petitioner and try to dispose off the same preferably on the same day if possible, keeping in mind that the prosecution report has been transmitted after about three months of the seizure which clouds the bona fide of the prosecution case, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today. With this observation, the application is disposed off. Narendra/S. Ali ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )