Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67010 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2018 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rohit Kumar Son of Jagan Yadav Resident of Iguni P.S. Kasma,Distt.- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 213 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Allegation against petitioner is recovery of foreign liquor from his Tata Indigo and on seeing the police two persons fled away but petitioner was apprehended.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that real culprits fled away and petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 10.09.2018.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67010 of 2018(2) dt.06-11-2018 2/2 the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum Special Judge, Excise Act, Aurangabad, in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 213 of 2018 subject to the conditions 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 properly represented on each and every date 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/- U T