Darshan Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28129 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2018 Thana -PIPRAKOTHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Darshan Rai, son of Harihar Rai, Resident of Village- Bathna, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Indra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2018 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 the I.P.C and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 20 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 20 liters wine is recovered from Bamboo Orchard of Mosaheb Rai. The name of the petitioner has come in the present case as the informant police officer has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28129 of 2018 (2) dt.07-05-2018 2/2 claimed to have identified the petitioner. The petitioner is not acquainted with the informant nor the informant is acquainted with the petitioner. Hence, identification made by the informant itself is doubtful. 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 4th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 38 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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