Ranjan Kumar @ Hakku Kumar @ Hakku And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47537 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47537 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -158 Year- 2017 Thana -CHAUSA District- MADHEPURA ======================================================
1. RANJAN KUMAR @ HAKKU KUMAR @ HAKKU, Son of Damodar Mandal,
2. Chandrashekhar Kumar Son of Karu Mandal, Both R/o VillageJhalludas Tola (Tin Tanga), P.S.- Gopalpur Rangra O.P., DistrictBhagalpur. .... .... Petitioners/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners/s : Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2017 The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Chousa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 414 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) and 144 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of illicit liquor. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have falsely been implicated in this case and have no criminal antecedent. Moreover they have sufficiently been punished for the said offence as they have been in judicial custody since 04.06.2017.
Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47537 of 2017 (2) dt.12-10-2017 Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, quantity of recovery and period of custody and also that petitioners have no criminal antecedent, let the petitioners above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Udakishunganj, Madhepura, in connection with Chousa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2017. (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.
(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioners again found involved in any of the like offences, in future, prosecution will be free to move for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T