Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23336 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-997 Year-2021 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

RANJIT KUMAR @ RANJIT RAI son of Shankar Ray Resident of VillageTerasiya, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District - Vaishali. 2.

Sujit Kumar Son of Shankar Ray Resident of Village- Terasiya, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 997 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section-30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 45 liters wine is recovered.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against them. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged that 45 litres wine is recovered from the motorcycle. The petitioners are not owner of the motorcycle in question. The names of the petitioners have transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused. Except for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23336 of 2022(2) dt.11-05-2022 2/2 this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in the present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the order dated 13-04-2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari vs State of Bihar).

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Excise Court No.-I-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 997 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T