Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67352/2018bail granted

Ramprit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-11-22Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67352 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ramprit Kumar Son of late Rameshwar Paswan Residence of VillageSimrahiya, Police Station- Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2/477 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioner is of recovery of 18 litres of Nepali liquor from his possession.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 09.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67352 of 2018(2) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-IInd cum Special Judge Excise Act, Sitamarhi, in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2/477 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

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

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T