← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58135/2025allowed

Vijay Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-17Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58135 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2020 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Vijay Ram S/O Late Baijnath Ram R/O Village- Abharanchak, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna at present residing at A.G. Colony Jay Prakash Nagar, Nalapur H/o Rauki Yadav, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, 60 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from Tempo bearing Reg. No. BR01-PK-2685 and 20 litres of illicit liquor from E-rickshaw without having number plate. It is alleged that petitioner is owner of the seized Tempo.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case being the owner of the seized tempo. Further submission is that petitioner has no concern with the seized liquor. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58135 of 2025(3) dt.17-09-2025 2/2 was not present on the spot and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. Charge-sheet has already been submitted after completion of investigation. Petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025 and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Excise Judge, Danapur in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No.380 of 2020. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T