Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67575 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-851 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Bhabhua (Kaimur) ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Son of Ratan Saw Resident of Village- Harnaut, (Gangaura), Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Sahin Begam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Kaimur at Bhabhua Excise Case No. 851 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 7.200 ml. of foreign liquor from his bag while he was travelling on a bus.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that alleged bag from which the liquor has been seized does not belong to him. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 26.09.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67575 of 2018(2) dt.27-11-2018 2/2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances 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 Act, Kaimur at Bhabua, in connection with Kaimur at Bhabhua Excise Case No. 851 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