Ganga Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh
Listed On:
30 Apr 2018
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25309 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2018 Thana -SUPAUL District- SUPAUL ======================================================
Ganga Yadav, S/o- Late Madan Yadav, resident of Village- Baliyaspatti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul.
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party
.... .... Petitioner
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, A.P.P. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for
the offence registered under Sections 30(a) and 37(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 20 liters
wine is said to have been recovered.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 20 liters wine is recovered from Banswari in question. The Banswari in question does not belong
2/2
to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of alleged recovery made from the Banswari which is situated at the back of house of the petitioner. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr. P.C.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.S.J.-II-cum-Special Judge(Excise), Supaul, in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.