Masomat Domani Devi @ Domani Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40370 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -239 Year- 2017 Thana -LAUKHI District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Masomat Domani Devi @ Domani Devi, wife of Late Jugul Yadav @ Late Jugut Yadav.

2. Sarswati Devi, Wife of Shiv Shankar Yadav. Both are residents of village - Belhi Bhawanipur, P.S. Laukahi, District - Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP 46 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 43.200 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 43.200 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioners. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40370 of 2018 (2) dt.13-07-2018 2/2 name of the petitioners has come on the basis of alleged recovery made from the joint house of the petitioners where other family members also reside. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners are named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge-IInd, Madhubani, in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 239 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 716 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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