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

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Ms. Pratima Kumari, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 2 10-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(ii), 34(ii), 38(ii) and 41(i) of the Excise Act, 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 2023.560 litre of liquor from a pick-up van. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is next submitted that petitioner is neither the owner, nor the driver of the vehicle and the petitioner came to be implicated because of his antecedent by the Excise Control Cell. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25361 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Mahua P. S. Case No.369 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The application stands allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T