Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36358/2019bail granted

Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-06-12Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36358 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Nawada ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR, male, aged about 20 years, Son of Late Subodh Singh Resident of Rajgir Shiv Gali, P.S.- Rajgir in the district of Nalanda ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

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

2. The petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2019 in connection with G.O. Case No. 41 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with recovery of 32.400 litres of wine. It is submitted that the recovery has not been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has already suffered more than two months in custody. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36358 of 2019(2) dt.12-06-2019 2/2 thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada, in connection with G.O. Case No. 41 of 2019, on the following conditions- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself 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 petitioner 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, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

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