Suraj Kumar Jha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56236 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -374 Year- 2017 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Suraj Kumar Jha, Son of Pawan Kumar Jha and

2. Vikash Kumar @ Bittu Son of Manoj Kumar Jha, Both resident of Village- Maripur, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 88.56 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 88.56 liters wine is recovered from joint house of the petitioner no. 1. The name of the petitioner no. 1 has come in the present case on the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56236 of 2018 (2) dt.26-09-2018 2/2 basis of alleged recovery made from joint house of the petitioner no. 1 where other family members also reside. The name of the petitioner no. 2 has come on the basis of disclosure made by coaccused Pawan Kumar Jha. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners are named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Excise Act, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Excise Case No. 374/2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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