Kare Lal Yadav @ Janardan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17977 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2018 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Kare Lal Yadav @ Janardan Yadav, Male, 45 Years, Son of Late Prasadi Yadav, R/o village- Pachrukhi, P.S.- Dandari, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 188 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 841.32 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 841.32 liters wine is recovered from the Pick-up Van in question. The said Pick-up Van in question does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have been identified by the police party. The petitioner is not known to the police party nor the police party is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17977 of 2019(2) dt.29-03-2019 2/2 known to the petitioner. Hence, identification made by the police party is itself doubtful. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. 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/ Complaint Case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Begusarai, in connection with Dandari P.S. Case No. 84 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T