Raju Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.64029 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2018 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raju Gupta, Son of Sri Ramesh Prasad Gupta, Resident of Vill.- Bihia pipeline Ward No. 3, Police Station- Bihia, in the district of Bhojpur, Ara. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018 (Excise Case No. 1272 of 2018) registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioner is of recovery of 35.580 litres of wine from the motorcycle.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 10.08.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.64029 of 2018(2) dt.05-11-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Session Judge 4th, (Spl. Judge Excise), Ara, Bhojpur, in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018 (Excise Case No. 1272 of 2018) subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be represented on each and every date fixed by the court.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T