Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3747 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2019 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Kumar S/O Bhagwat Prasad Yadav Resident Of Village - Parariya, P. S. - Sirdala, District - Nawada. 2.

Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Yadav Bhagwat Prasad Yadav Sirdala,Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

Counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy. Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present application filed on behalf of petitioner No.1, as the petitioner No.1 has been taken into judicial custody. Permission is accorded.

The application filed on behalf of petitioner No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner No.2 is apprehending his arrest in a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3747 of 2021(2) dt.20-07-2021 2/3 case registered under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 6 liters mahua and gur are recovered.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner No.2 that the petitioner No.2 has got no criminal antecedent and there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 has falsely been implicated in this case. The name of the petitioner No.2 has transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by the local Chaukidar. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner No.2 in this case. It is alleged that 6 liters mahua and gur are recovered from the forest area in abandoned state. The petitioner No.2 had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner No.2. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner No.2 is named in the complaint case/F.I.R. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the lockdown, the petitioner No.2, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3747 of 2021(2) dt.20-07-2021 3/3 within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge IInd-cum-Special Judge, Nawada in connection with Sirdala P.S. case No.360 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner No.2 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) Narendra/- U T