Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40832 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2017 Thana -DEHRI TOWN District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI CHAUDHARY, Son of Ajay Chaudhary @ Patali, Resident of Mohalla- Shivganj, Near Jaihind Cinema, Police Station- Dehri (Nagar), District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramchandra Singh For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2018 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 of the IPC, 30(a), 38(i),41(i) and (ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 20 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 20 liters wine is recovered from the Boat in question. The Boat in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40832 of 2018 (2) dt.13-07-2018 2/2 disclosure made by the local residents as per the F.I.R. The name of the local residents, who have named the petitioner, 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 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Dehri (Nagar) P.S. Case No. 98 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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