Kamlesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40417 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2017 Thana -RISHIUP District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jagdish Singh, Resident of VillageDumriyan, P.S.- Sasaram (M), District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-07-2018 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 Sections 30(a) and 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 156 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 156 liters wine is recovered from the car in question. As per prosecution case, the car in question is alleged to be of the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40417 of 2018 (2) dt.16-07-2018 2/2 counsel for the petitioner that the said car in question had already been sold by the petitioner to one Vivek Kumar Singh prior to the date of alleged incident which is evident from Annexure-2 to the present application. 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), Aurangabad, in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No. 62 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