Raushan Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67977 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ======================================================

1. Raushan Kumar son of Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla- Old Jakkanpur, Police Station- Jakkanpur, DistrictPatna.

2. Prince Raj Sharma, son of Sri Sharban Sharma, Resident of Mohallah- New Yarpur Road No. 1, Police Station- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Amrendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners, who are in custody, seek bail in connection with Excise (Sherghati) Case No. 361 of 2018 (Excise Case No. 361/2018) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 56(d) of Bihar Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioners is of recovery of 29 litres of foreign liquor from the dicky of the car. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they are in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67977 of 2018(2) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 custody since 26.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise, Gaya, in connection with Excise (Sherghati) Case No. 361 of 2018 (Excise Case No. 361/2018) subject to the conditions that:-

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

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

(3) If the petitioners 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 petitioners.

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