Sunil Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.63512 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -124 Year- 2018 Thana -RAGHUNATHPUR District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Sunil Singh, S/o Raghunath Singh,

2. Uma Bhar, S/o Late Mahanth Bhar, Both R/o Village- Gabhirar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Smt. Sahin Begam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273, 308/34 of the IPC, 30(a), 38(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 5.4 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. It is alleged that total 5.4 liters wine is recovered from the Mango Orchard in question. The Mango Orchard in question does not belong to the petitioners. The name of the petitioners has come on the basis of disclosure made by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63512 of 2018 (2) dt.10-10-2018 2/2 local residents as per the F.I.R. The name of the local residents, who have named the petitioners, has not been disclosed by the prosecution. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners are named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Siwan, in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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