Saroj Singh @ Saroj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32650 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2019 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Saroj Singh @ Saroj Kumar Son of Parmanand Singh Resident of VillageMakhua, Police Station- Vaishali, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-07-2022 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 103/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery of total 594 liters foreign liquor from Poultry Farm of the petitioner. Petitioner was not apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. Petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and nothing has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32650 of 2022(2) dt.29-07-2022 2/3 possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has been made accused in this case due to owner of the said Poultry Farm. He further submits that the said Poultry Farm belongs to the petitioner but he had given on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- since 2018 to Vijay Singh. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 06.05.2022 and bears criminal antecedent of two cases of similar nature. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioner was not apprehended on the spot, charge sheet has already been submitted and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail after framing of charge on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.-II, Hajipur, Vaishali in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 103/2019, subject to following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32650 of 2022(2) dt.29-07-2022 3/3 affidavit in bail application.

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial Court itself. (iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T