Jitan Rai And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60500 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2018 Thana -HAZIPUR INDUSTRIAL DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Jitan Rai,

2. Ram Prasad Rai, Both Sons of Late Nath Rai, R/o Vill.- Divan Tock, P.S.- Ganga Brige, Distt.- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Hajipur Industrial P.S.Case No. 149 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30 (A) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

As per F.I.R. allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were apprehended by the police with 50 liters each country made wine from the possession of the petitioners and accordingly, seizure list has been prepared. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and there is no proper evidence to proof the occurrence and they are in custody since 26.08.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60500 of 2018 (2) dt.06-10-2018 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Industrial P.S.Case No. 149 of 2018, subject to the following conditions:- i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. ii) The petitioner will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.

iii) It is made clear that if petitioner found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution is free to move for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T