Patna High CourtCR. MISC./62943/2018bail granted

Dadan Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

2018-10-12Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.62943 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2018 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dadan Mukhiya, Son of Govind Mukhiya, a resident of Sisahani, P.S.- Pakdidayal District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Patahi P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 272, 273,/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30, 34 and 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Allegation against the petitioner is of recovery of 5 Litre of country made liquor.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has committed no offence and has been implicated in this case on suspicion. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 23.07.2018. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.62943 of 2018(2) dt.12-10-2018 2/2 amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Excise, Motihari, in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018, with following conditions:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U