Anjali Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59753 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-365 Year-2018 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== ANJALI DEVI W/o Ramesh Kumar R/o Village- Parri, Ward No.10, P.S.- Punaura, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2022 Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sitamarhi (Punaura O.P.) P.S. Case No. 365 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 272, 273 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Recovery is of 2071 liters of foreign liquor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59753 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 2/3 innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per the F.I.R., the alleged recovery has been made from bamboo clamp but nothing has been recovered for the vehicle of the petitioner. He further submits that it is apparent from the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 2406 of 2018, which is at annexure-2, that nothing has been recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner and she has been made accused in this case merely on the basis of her ownership over the vehicle in question. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 30.08.2021.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the, above named, petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Excise Act, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi (Punaura O.P.) P.S. Case No. 365 of 2018 with the following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59753 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 3/3

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T