Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3112 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2020 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Rai, aged about 34 years (M), Son Of Radheshyam Rai Village- Kewta, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-05-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in paragraph no. 1 and prayer portion of the bail application within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 1330.500 liters wine is said to have been recovered from the Truck in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3112 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2021 2/3 question.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 1330.500 liters wine is recovered from the Truck in question. The Truck in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by coaccused Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. 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/ Complaint Case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3112 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2021 3/3 learned Additional Sessions Judge-2nd-cum-Special Judge (Excise), Samastipur, in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 289 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T