Shambhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35989 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2020 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== SHAMBHU YADAV S/O ARVIND YADAV R/o village- Terha, P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 17-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 272, 273, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per the prosecution case, 1395 litres of liquor is stated to have been recovered from two vehicles and the driver who was caught, on enquiry is said to have stated that he had taken the liquor from accused Ram Kumar and was going to reach the same to accused Kari Yadav and the petitioner herein. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was arrested at the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The only material against him is the statement of the driver made before police. He is in custody since 14.12.2020 and has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedent. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered on 1.3.2020 and thus on the first

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35989 of 2021(2) dt.17-12-2021 2/2 page of the FIR the number has wrongly been mentioned as Jaynagar P.S. Case no. 70 of 2019. The same should be read as Jaynagar P.S. Case no. 70 of 2020 which would be evident from the margin of the first page of the written statement. Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the petitioner not having been arrested at the spot nor any incriminating article having been recovered from his possession together with the petitioner having remained in custody for 1 year, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case no. 70 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. no. 369/2020) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Excise Act, Madhubani. (Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U