Jitendra Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45564 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2018 Thana- MANIHARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Jitendra Ray Son of Ramdeni Ray Resident of Village - Chakmehsi, P.S. Maniyari, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Barun Kumar Choudhary, Adv.

Smt. Pratima Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Gulnar Begam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 272, 273 of the I.P.C. and Sections 30(a), 38, 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1899 liters wine is recovered.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case as the informant (police) claims to have identified the petitioner in the light of the truck at 11 in the night. The petitioner is not acquainted with the informant nor the informant acquainted with the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45564 of 2018(2) dt.26-07-2018 2/2 identification made by the informant itself is doubtful. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that 1899 liters wine is recovered from the truck. The truck in question does not belong to the petitioner. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Maniyari P.S. case No.129 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T