Mangru Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20370 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2020 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MANGRU RAI, aged about 60 years, Male, Son of Late Kantalal Ray, Resident of Village - Mohan Dih, P.S.- Dumra, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-07-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 59.625 liters wine is said to have been recovered from the house of coaccused. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20370 of 2021(2) dt.02-07-2021 2/3 allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that total 59.625 liters wine is recovered from the house of co-accused Munna Raut. The Motorcycles in question do not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Rohit Kumar. 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 of the case, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, (Excise), Sitamarhi, in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 346 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20370 of 2021(2) dt.02-07-2021 3/3 Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T