Indrajeet Kumar @ Lalsena @ Sipahi @ Sipahi Jee v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39865 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -237 Year- 2017 Thana -DAUDNAGAR District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Indrajeet Kumar @ Lalsena @ Sipahi @ Sipahi Jee, Son of Yogendra Mahto, Resident of VillageKera, P.S.

Daudnagar, DistrictAurangabad(Bihar)................................................. .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Mustaque Alam, APP 36 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-07-2018 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 Section 30(a)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 1317.95 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. 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 1317.95 liters wine is recovered from Brick-kiln in question. The Brick-kiln in question does not belong to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39865 of 2018 (2) dt.12-07-2018 2/2 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 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 JudgeVII-Cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Aurangabad, in connection with Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 237 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./AbhijeetU T