Rajendra Mandal And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68772 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ======================================================

1. Rajendra Mandal, Son of Late Baudh Mandal.

2. Sheokashi Mandal, Son of Rajendra Mandal,

3. Upendra Mandal, S/o Late Baudh Mandal, All resident of Village- Rajan, P.S.- Gurua, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners, who are in custody, seek bail in connection with Excise Case No. 353 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioners is of recovery of 285 Kg Mahua Jawa from near their house.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they are in custody since 19.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68772 of 2018(2) dt.29-11-2018 2/2 of 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 Special Judge, Excise, Gaya, in connection with Excise Case No. 353 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