Govind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19388 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-449 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Govind Singh Son of Late Dinanath Singh Resident of Village - Shital Bigha, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Auranagabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Leelawati Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SART ORAL ORDER 09-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Excise Case No. 449 of 2019 registered for the offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per allegation in the FIR, 68.92 litres of liquor is stated to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75209 of 2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing six months in custody. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that typographical error has occurred in paragraph no. 11 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19388 of 2020(2) dt.09-06-2020 2/2 custody since 07.02.2020. The said is an error is clearly evident from the fact that even prior to 07.02.2020, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 02.12.2019 i.e. Annexure-1. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2019, which would be evident from the order of the learned court below rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the liberty granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.2019 and the petitioner being in custody for more than nine months since 02.09.2019, the court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Excise Case No. 449 of 2019 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VII-cum-Special Judge (Excise), Aurangabad.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U