Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45952/2017bail granted

Umesh Sah @ Umesh Saw v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-19Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45952 of 2017 (2) dt.19-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45952 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2017 Thana -DHANKUND District- BANKA ======================================================

1. Umesh Sah @ Umesh Saw Son of Arjun Sah, resident of VillageYogibir, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Mithilesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dhankund P.S. Case No. 29 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of 11.40 litres of country made wine.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover he has sufficiently been punished for the said offence as he has been in judicial custody since 21.06.2017 and has no criminal antecedent. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, quantity of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45952 of 2017 (2) dt.19-09-2017 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 Additional Sessions Judge -II, Banka, in connection with Dhankund P.S. Case No. 29 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