Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25846 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2017 Thana -SONBERSA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Dhiraj Chaudhary @ Dharju Chaudhary, R/o Vill.- Chahuta, P.O.- Kamtaul, P.S.- Bisfi and DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-07-2018 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 272, 273, 379, 337, 338 of the IPC and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 243 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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25846 of 2018 (3) dt.24-07-2018 2/3 case. It is alleged that total 243 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 alleged to be owner of the said car. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said car in question was already sold to one Ram Kripal Sah prior to the alleged date of occurrence 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 JudgeII-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Sitamarhi, in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 109 of 2017, subject to the conditions as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25846 of 2018 (3) dt.24-07-2018 3/3 laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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