Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45046/2017bail granted

Arvind Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-18Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45046 of 2017 (2) dt.18-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45046 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -873 Year- 2017 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Arvind Prasad, son of Late Timal Prasad, resident of Village Niranjan Bigha, P.S.- Dehari, District- Rohtas at Sasaram (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sasaram Nagar (Tilauthu) P.S. Case No. 873 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30(A) and 35 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of about 11 litres of country made wine.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 24.06.2017. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, quantity of recovery and period of custody and also that petitioner has no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45046 of 2017 (2) dt.18-09-2017 criminal antecedent, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Special Judge, Excise Act, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Excise Sasaram Nagar (Tilauthu) P.S. Case No. 873 of 2017. (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner again found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution will be free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T