Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59712 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/O Gagandeo Yadav @ Gagan Yadav VillageChhatapur, PS- Andhramath, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Shaheen Begum, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered under Sections 272, 273, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on secret information, the police raided the place of occurrence and recovered 288 litres of illicit liquor from three motorcycles and 540 litres of illicit liquor from orchard in village Chhatapur. It is alleged that petitioner succeeded to flee away from the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the disclosure statement of apprehended coaccused persons. Further submission is that petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the seized motorcycles. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59712 of 2025(2) dt.11-09-2025 2/2 has no concern with the seized illicit liquor. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no independent witness on the seizure list. Except the disclosure statement of apprehended co-accused persons, there is nothing material against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2025 and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise Act, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No.85 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 383 of 2024.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T