Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32630 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2019 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== ARVIND KUMAR Son of Kailash Ray Resident of Village - Chakki Rampur @ Chak Rampur hari, P.S.- Mahindwara, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through virtual mode.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections-30, 30(g), 38(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1058.40 liters wine is recovered.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32630 of 2021(2) dt.26-08-2021 2/3 petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged that 1058.40 liters wine is recovered from the truck. The truck, in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of secret information. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. The other co-accused with similar allegation has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of this court(then her Lordship was) vide order dated 23-05-2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34042 of 2019. 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.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, 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 his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Sitamarhi in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32630 of 2021(2) dt.26-08-2021 3/3 connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

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