Suraj Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19214 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2017 Thana -GOVINDPUR District- NAWADA ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Kumar, Son of Ram Balak Yadav, R/o Village- Mano Bigha, P.S.- Akabarpur, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satyavarat Verma (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act 2016.

Allegedly, 350 pieces country made liquor each containing 200 M.L. were recovered from possession of the petitioner and co-accused and they were apprehended Submission is of false implication and that the motorcycle does not belong to the petitioner, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. He was simply standing on the spot resulting, he was apprehended, without any fault he is suffering in custody since 22.02.2017 and,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19214 of 2017 (2) dt.11-05-2017 2/2 as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. submits that petitioner and coaccused were apprehended with motorcycle and from the motorcycle the liquor was recovered.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T