Mundrika Rai @ Murari Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2803 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -73 Year- 2017 Thana -KATRAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Mundrika Rai @ Murari Rai, S/o Late Rameshwar Rai, resident of village - Gurmiya (West Tola), P.S. - Kartahan, Distt. - Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anish Chandra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-01-2018 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 30(A), 32(2) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 47.520 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 47.520 liters wine is recovered from two vehicles. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of seized two vehicles which were parked by the side of Bathan of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2803 of 2018 (2) dt.19-01-2018 2/2 the petitioner. One of the vehicles in question belongs to the petitioner. The said vehicles were being run as a public carrier by the driver of the petitioner. 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.

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 Additional Sessions JudgeII-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Kartahan P.S. Case No. 73 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