Shankar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.63224 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2018 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Shankar Yadav son of Late Ramanand Yadav, resident of Village- Bhodhar, Ward No. 13, P.S. Fulkaha, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 470 of 2018 arising out of Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioner is of recovery of 22 litres of Nepali liquor from his motorcycle.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. He is in custody since 18.07.2018.

Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63224 of 2018(2) dt.26-10-2018 2/2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria, in connection with Special Case No. 470/18 arising out of Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 subject to the condition that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every dated fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/bantiU T