Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34220 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2020 Thana- MAHESI District- East Champaran ====================================================== RANJIT RAI @ RANJIT KUMAR RAI Son of Late Baiju Rai Resident of Village- Ranipatti, P.S.- Rajepur,, District- East Champaran, at present address- C/o Late Mahendra Rai, Village- Madhopur (Motipur), P.S.- Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-03-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The prosecution case, in short, is that 10.515 liters wine is recovered.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34220 of 2020(2) dt.08-03-2021 2/2 co-accused, namely, Prabhansh Chaudhary. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that 10.515 liters wine is recovered from the motorcycle in question. The motorcycle in question does not belong to the petitioner. 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.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/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 learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Excise Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 22/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T