High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Santosh Kr. Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 24 October, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Santosh Kr. Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 24 October, 2011
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           CR.MISC. NO.30426 OF 2011
                   SANTOSH KR. MAHTO, S/O RAM CHANDRA
                   MAHATO,    R/O    VILLAGE    RAJE,    P.S
                   MANIGACHHI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA.
                                          .....................PETITIONER.

                                     VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                                    ...........................OPPOSITE PARTY.
                           -----------

03/ 24.10.2011 No one appears for the petitioner.

The petitioner has been made accused

for the offences punishable under Section

47-(a)(f) of Excise Act and is in custody

since, 11.08.2011.

In the bail application it has been

mentioned that the petitioner has got no

criminal antecedent and that he had no

concern with Shambhu Chaupal and Suraj

Mandal, who are said to be the main persons

responsible for the alleged act of storage

of 100 litres of spirit and 500 sachets of

400 ml contained in four bags apart from

200 litres of country made liquor etc.

This Court taking into account that

the petitioner is the first offender for

the offences punishable under Section 47 of

the Excise Act and has remained in custody

for a period of almost three months, this

Court would direct for release of the
2

petitioner, namely, Santosh Kumar Mahto on

bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.

10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties

of the like amount each to the satisfaction

of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga

at Laheriasarai in connection with O.

(Excise) Case No. 41 of 2011 subject to the

following three conditions:-

                i)    The      two       bail       bonds   will       be

         furnished,       one      by    the      Government     servant

and the other by a close family relative.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present

in course of trial on each and every day

and his absence even for a single day would

automatically entail the consequences of

cancellation of his bail.

(iii) The petitioner in case is now

made accused in any other criminal case,

that would itself lead to cancellation of

his bail.

Ranjan                                       (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)