Mukesh Kumar Rai @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39915 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2018 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Rai @ Mukesh Kumar son of Asharfi Roy resident of Village - Nilkanthpur, P.S. Mahua, Dist: Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 10-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner is in custody in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 23 of 2018 for the offence under section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(A), 32(ii), 38(ii) & 41(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in the instant case as there is no question of any theft of stolen property. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern with the vehicle carrying the liquor or the liquor. He was arrested in the instant case only on suspicion that his motorcycle was found at the place where the liquor was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2018.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39915 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2018 2/2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that in the instant case huge quantity of liquor was seized and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail. However, he admits that Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable as there is no case of theft.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has no concern with the seized liquor.

In view of the above, the court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the reason that bail is rule, jail is exception and unless there is exception in the case under trial, presumed to be innocence unless contrary is proved.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, let the petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail after 23.07.2018 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum-Special Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur, in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 23 of 2018. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U T