Shyam Sunder Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36315 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2019 Thana- CHANPATIA DistrictWest Champaran ====================================================== 1.

SHYAM SUNDER RAM, aged about 25 years, male, Son of Raj Banshi Ram Resident of Village - Chargharwa, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran 2.

Mukul Ram, aged about 23 years, male, Son of Yadunandan Ram Resident of Village - Chargharwa, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 12-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are in custody since 17.03.2019 in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 82 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in connection with recovery of about 30 litres country made liquor kept in a gunny bag under the seat of the auto rickshaw in which the petitioners were found sitting. It is submitted that the petitioners are mere a passenger and have no knowledge about the illegal liquor. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36315 of 2019(2) dt.12-06-2019 2/2 thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise, West Champran, in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 82 of 2019, on the following conditions- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make themselves available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) That the petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T