Vipin Mahto @ Vipin Mahro v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34013 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Vipin Mahto @ Vipin Mahro, son of late Chandreshwar Mahto, resident of Village- Jagdar, P.S. Parihar, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hans Lal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Rajballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 06-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner is in custody in connection with Case No. C2-109/18 registered under section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He was arrested on 18.02.2018 and by now he has completed more than three and half months.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed prayer for bail on the ground that petitioner was arrested alongwith 36 liters of Nepali wine. He submits that in view of the above, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34013 of 2018(2) dt.06-06-2018 2/2 Considering the fact that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is presumption as to the innocence unless contrary is proved. Bail is rule and rejection of bail is exception. While rejecting the bail the Court has to keep in mind that the rejection of bail should not be a substitute for punishment. In view of the above the court is not inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the State, opposing the prayer for bail since petitioner has no criminal antecedent he has remained in custody for more than three months by that time and as such the entire purpose of keeping the petitioner behind the bar has now completed as after submission of charge-sheet there is no apprehension of influencing investigation.

Considering the above, the court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, let the petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Sitamarhi, in connection with Case No. C2/109/18.