Sushil Yadav @ Tata v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23141 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2019 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== SUSHIL YADAV @ TATA Son of Ramchandra Yadav Resident of VillagePhatulaha, Police Station-Bahera, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-09-2020 Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 198 liters wine is recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23141 of 2020(2) dt.30-09-2020 2/3 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused, namely, Dhiraj Kumar Yadav. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that 198 liters wine is recovered from the godown in question. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner 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 petitioner is named in the F.I.R./complaint case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Excise Act, Darbhanga in connection with G.O. Case No. 1334 of 2019 arising out of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23141 of 2020(2) dt.30-09-2020 3/3 Baheri P.S. Case No. 302 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T