Suresh Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.57973 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2018 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Suresh Mukhiya son of Late Maharaj Mukhiya, resident of Village- Tapsi Parsauna, P.O.+ P.S.- Palanwa, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Excise Case No. 345 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30 (a) of Bihar Excise Act, 2016. Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of 35 liter Nepali liquor from a bag, which was loaded on a motorcycle from the possession of the petitioner and seizure list has been prepared.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57973 of 2018 (2) dt.28-09-2018 2/2 28.07.2018.
Heard learned A.P.P also.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Excise Case No. 345 of 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 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) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.
iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T