Binod Kumar Sah @ Binod Kumar @ Binod Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40671 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -196 Year- 2018 Thana -SARAIYA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Binod Kumar Sah @ Binod Kumar @ Binod Sah, son of Sakal Sah, resident of village - Basantpur Patti, P.S. Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2018 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 IPC and 30(a), 38 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 251.635 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that total 251.635 liters wine is recovered from the Mango Orchard in question. The Mango Orchard in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40671 of 2018 (2) dt.13-07-2018 2/2 disclosure made by the local residents as per the F.I.R. The name of the local residents, who have named the petitioner, has not been disclosed by the prosecution. 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 Special Judge, Excise Act, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No.-196 of 2018, G.R. No.- 712 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./AbhijeetU T