Raju Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the following serving defects within 1 week after reopening of winter vacation in January,

2021.

9(i) A/F of Rs. 30/- is wanting on Annex-1

(ii) Duly certified typed coy of page nos. 10 to 12 may be given.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C in

connection with C.C. Case No. 815 of 2019 instituted under Sections 47(a) (f) of the Excise Act, pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Seraikella.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Inspector, Excise Circle, Seraikella-Kharswan, the informant, has stated in his prosecution

report that on secret information upon conducting raid in Village-Khokhrudih, 120 litters of Mahua liquor, kept in four jar cane and 2300 kg. of

fermented Jawa Mahua were kept in 23 plastic drums implanted inside there, which were destroyed after taking a sample and preparation of seizure-

list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no source disclosed as to why the name of the petitioner has transpired since no seizure

was made from the premises of the petitioner and there was no independent witness before whom the seizure has been made. Simply on suspicion

petitioner has been made an accused along with two others. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, he would suffer unnecessary

incarceration, if not granted protection of anticipatory bail on unsubstantiated allegations. Petitioner belongs to different village Bhadudih under Chandil

P.S. Learned A.P. P. for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that substantial quantity of Mahua liquor was seized and large quantity of

fermented Jawa Mahua were destroyed after conducting raid upon secret information from village Khokhrudih. Learned A.P.P has therefore

submitted that no protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be granted to him.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the facts and circumstances above. Having regard to the

fact that the informant has not referred to any definite source for identification of this petitioner and that such seizure has not been made from the

premises of this petitioner or his possession, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner above

named, in the event of his surrender or arrest within a period of 4 weeks, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with C.C Case

No. 815 of 2019, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. Petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation. Petitioner and his

bailors shall not change their address or mobile phone number without permission of the trial court.