Chunnu Ojha @ Ravindra Ojha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22464 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== CHUNNU OJHA @ RAVINDRA OJHA, aged about 35 years, Gender-Male, Son of Braj Kishore Ojha, Resident of Village - Madhukar Chapra, P.S. - Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Neeraj Kumar alias Sanidh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2020 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 lifting of the lockdown in the State of Bihar.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016-18.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22464 of 2020(2) dt.01-09-2020 2/3 The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 831.720 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 831.720 liters wine is recovered from the open field situated at the back of the house of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come in the present case on the basis of alleged recovery made from the open field situated at the back of the house of the petitioner. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. 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 of Cr. P.C.

On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it is been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22464 of 2020(2) dt.01-09-2020 3/3 period of eight weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Excise, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 20/2020, 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 seven weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

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