Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84290 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2019 Thana- PUPRI DistrictSitamarhi ====================================================== PRAMOD KUMAR Son of Late Ramdev Rai Resident of Village - Rikhauli, P.S.- Dumra, Distt - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s:
Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody since 09.11.2019 in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 456 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with recovery of 358.500 litres of Nepali liquor from a car. It is submitted that similarly situated coaccused Bisho Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2294 of 2020. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Be that as it may, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84290 of 2019(4) dt.17-03-2020 2/2 satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Sitamarhi, in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 456 of 2019, on the following conditions- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.
(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T