Suraj Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36064 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -220 Year- 2017 Thana -MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE DistrictGAYA ====================================================== Suraj Choudhary, Son of Vinod Choudhary, Resident of VillageKhiriyawa, P.S. Magadh Medical , District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-07-2018 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), 38(1)(2), 44 and 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 39 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 39 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner and from the Tempo standing in front of house of the petitioner. The Tempo in question does not belong

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36064 of 2018 (3) dt.09-07-2018 2/2 to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of alleged recovery made from joint house of the petitioner where other family members also reside. 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 Special Judge, Excise, Gaya, in connection with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No. 220 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