Dilip Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36841 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2018 Thana -PIPRAKOTHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Dilip Pandey, son of Late Rajendra Pandey @ Bagar Pandey, resident of Village- Mahmada, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP,167. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273/34 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 1350 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that total 1350 liters wine is recovered from the Tractor, Pick-up van and motorcycle in question. None of the vehicles in question belongs

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36841 of 2018 (3) dt.10-07-2018 2/2 to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of secret information as per F.I.R. The source and genuineness of secret information has not been disclosed by the prosecution. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr. P.C. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./AbhijeetU T