Suman Mukhia v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68269 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-689 Year-2018 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Suman Mukhia, Son of Upendra Mukhia, Resident of Village- Bhatran Jha, Ward No.06, P.S.- Parmanandpur District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Excise Case No. 1000 of 2018 arising out of Madhepura P.S. (Permanandur O.P.) Case No. 689/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioner is of recovery of 16 litres of country made liquor from his house. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 25.08.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68269 of 2018(2) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Session Judge-II cum Special Judge, Madhepura, in connection with Excise Case No. 1000 of 2018 arising out of Madhepura P.S. (Permanandur O.P.) Case No. 689/2018 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 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(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