IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17727 of 2010 RAMESH RAI @ RAMESH KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 15.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The defence of the petitioner in a Police case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is that he is only the owner of the vehicle when the F.I.R. suggests that the illegal trade in Kerosene oil of 2200 litres was being done by Ravi Ranjan Rai, Mahesh Rai, Parmesh Rai. Counsel for the State points out that there is no pleading in the application that the petitioner runs the pick up van for hire and it was being utilized by those who had hired. This Court is not persuaded to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. The issue whether the van was being run in hire by the petitioner is a matter to be appropriately considered in regular bail, without being prejudiced by the present order. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)