Bahadur Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58808 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2021 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== BAHADUR YADAV, Male/aged about 49 years, Son of Late Ramji Yadav, (wrongly stated in F.I.R. Ghurahu Yadav), Resident of Village - Dhumardeo, P.S.- Chainpur, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-12-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of eight weeks.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2021 for the offence registered under Sections 30(a), 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 and under Section 3⁄4 of the Bihar Excise (Mahua Flower) Act, 2006.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 4 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58808 of 2021(2) dt.08-12-2021 2/3 petitioner that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to mistake of fact. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. For the same incident, two different cases were instituted. One relating to the offence under N.D.P.S. Act and another case relating to the Excise Act. The present case relates to the Excise Act. It is alleged that total 04 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner. 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, 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 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, (Excise), Kaimur at Bhabua, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58808 of 2021(2) dt.08-12-2021 3/3 connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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