Ajay Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30948 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -89 Year- 2018 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictNAWADA ======================================================

1. Ajay Yadav son of Ram Yadav

2. Koushal Chaudhary son of Parmeshwar Chaudhary

3. Pankaj Chaudhary son of Girani Chaudhary @ Ghutar Chaudhary All residents of village Gurma, P.S. Muffasil, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-07-2018 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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 660 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 660 liters wine is recovered from open field in question. The open field in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30948 of 2018 (4) dt.16-07-2018 2/2 question does not belong to the petitioners. The name of the petitioners has come on the basis of secret information as per F.I.R. The source and genuineness of secret information 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 A.D.J.-II-cumSpecial Judge, Nawada, in connection with Excise Case No. 251 of 2018, G.O. 89/2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T