Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74208 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav S/o Ram Bahadur Yadav R/o village - Salempur , P.S - Bisfi, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 30-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No. 168 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per prosecution case, the police has recovered total 108 liters of illicit Nepali liquor from the motorcycle. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the seized liquor. He further submits that there is delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74208 of 2025(2) dt.30-10-2025 2/2 too without there being any plausible explanation for the same which creates doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. The petitioner has never indulged in the business regarding sale and purchase of liquor. There is a non-compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S. which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since 03.09.2025 without any rhymes or reason.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No. 168 of 2025.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T