Ajay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56881 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2017 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ====================================================== Ajay Yadav, Son of Madho Yadav, Resident of Village- Manjura, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-09-2018 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, 30(a), 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and 3⁄4 of Mahua Flower Rules.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 120 Kg. of Mahua flower and 18 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 120 Kg. of Mahua Flower and 18 liters

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56881 of 2018 (2) dt.12-09-2018 2/3 wine is recovered from two motorcycles in question. Out of which, 18 liters wine is said to have been recovered from one of the Motorcycles bearing Registration No. BR-02R/2245 belongs to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of the said seized Motorcycle. The petitioner is alleged to be owner of the said Motorcycle. The Motorcycle was given by the petitioner to a co-villager for his personal use. 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, Gaya, in connection with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 22/2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56881 of 2018 (2) dt.12-09-2018 3/3 Code of Criminal Procedure.

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