Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45149/2017bail granted

Mahendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-15Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45149 of 2017 (2) dt.15-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45149 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -59 Year- 2017 Thana -NAVHATTA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Mahendra Ram Son of late Fulu Ram Resident of Village: Bhadara, P.S: Nauhatta, District: Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 59 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of 5 litres of mahua liquor. 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 28.06.2017 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.45149 of 2017 (2) dt.15-09-2017 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-CumSpecial Judge, Excise, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 59 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