Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45630/2017bail granted

Nathuni Pasi v. The State Of Bihar

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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45630 of 2017 (2) dt.19-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45630 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2017 Thana -CHENARI District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Nathuni Pasi S/o Late Riga Pasi R/o Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 179 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30(A), 33 and 34 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation is of recovery of 4 litres of mahua 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 11.08.2017. 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 criminal antecedent, let the petitioner above named, be released

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45630 of 2017 (2) dt.19-09-2017 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 - Cum - Special Judge, Excise, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 179 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