Madan Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3320 of 2017 (2) dt.20-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3320 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -86 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMRIAGHAT DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Madan Sahani, Son of Sri Jagdish Sahani, resident of Village- Khurd Barharawa, P.S.- Dumariaghat, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 47A, 53 ( c) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Allegedly, four liter country made liquor was recovered from possession of co-accused Sathu Ram and he disclosed that he along with Madan Sahani (petitioner ) and Shivmangal Ram are indulged in dealing with illicit liquor.

Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner, without any fault he is suffering in custody since 23.08.2016 and Sathu Ram has already been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 55389 of 2016 to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3320 of 2017 (2) dt.20-02-2017 which the learned APP does not oppose.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Dumariaghat P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T