Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48409/2017bail granted

Vinod Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-12Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48409 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48409 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Vinod Mukhiya, Son of Faguni Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Bijbani Kachahariya Tola P.S.- Jitna (Ghorasahan), District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ghorasahan (Jitana) P.S. Case No. 342 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of 24 litres of Nepali Saufi liquor.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his name has been disclosed by the co-accused of this case. Further he has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 24.08.2017. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48409 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2017 circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, quantity of recovery and period of custody and also that petitioner has no 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 7th Additional Sessions Judge - cumSpecial Judge, Excise Act, Motihari, in connection with Ghorasahan (Jitana) P.S. Case No. 342 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