Navin Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16333 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -100 Year- 2017 Thana -PATEPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Navin Kumar Verma, Son of Hatnesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Ward No.10, Railway Chowk Colony, Police Station- Samastipur, DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 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 414, 120(B)/34 of the IPC , 30(a), 32(ii), 38(ii) and 41(i) and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 1624.05 liters wine is said to have been recovered.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16333 of 2018 (2) dt.28-03-2018 2/3 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 1624.05 liters wine is recovered from different 13 vehicles in question. Out of which, 25.92 liters wine is recovered from the car in question. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of seized car. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the car in question. The car was being used as Taxi 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/ Complaint Case. 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 Judge-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16333 of 2018 (2) dt.28-03-2018 3/3 II-cum-Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 100 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