Jai Prakash Sah @ Jai Prakash Gupta And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21544 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -56 Year- 2018 Thana -MOTIHARI MUFASIL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Jai Prakash Sah @ Jai Prakash Gupta, S/o Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta,

2. Dipak Paswan S/o Late Langtu Paswan, Both R/o Village- Daroga Tola, P.S.- Banjariya, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 180 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 180 liters

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21544 of 2018 (2) dt.13-04-2018 2/2 wine is recovered from the Jeep in question. The Jeep in question does not belong to the petitioners. The name of the petitioners has come on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Satan Mahto. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners are named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 56 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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