Dhrup Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13674 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2017 Thana -NASRIGANJ District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Dhrup Singh, Son of Jainath Singh alias Jagnath Singh, Resident of VillageSalempur, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 14.12.2017 in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 580 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. Charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13674 of 2018 (2) dt.09-03-2018 2/2 case. It is alleged that total 580 liters wine is recovered from the car in question. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name has come in course of investigation. On verification made by the District Transport Officer in respect of ownership of the car, it has come that one Usman Gani is the owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has got no concern with the vehicle or liquor in question. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr. P.C.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on 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 IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 58 of 2017. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T