Bechan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28456 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -381 Year- 2017 Thana -TAJPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Bechan Mahto, S/O Khakhru Mahto @ Khakhu Mahto, R/V- Dharmagatpur Bathua, P.S. Tajpur (Waini O.P.), District-Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : M/S. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Thakur Bikram Singh and Mukesh Kumar, Advocates.

For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273 of I.P.C, 30(a), 41(i) and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 333 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 333 liters wine is recovered from the car in question and at the back of houses of co-accused Sonu Kumar and Gautam Kumar @ Mantu. The car in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28456 of 2018 (2) dt.08-05-2018 2/2 the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Suman Kumar Sharma and others. 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 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 or 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 the learned Additional Sessions JudgeIIIrd-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Samastipur(who is presently the A.D.J. In-charge of Excise), in connection with Tajpur (Waini O.P.) P.S. Case No. 381 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K.