IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11367 of 2011 YOGENDRA YADAV @ YOGENDRA SINGH. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 28.04.2011. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 272, 273, 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. 35 liters illicit country made Mahuwa wine, Jawa Mahuwa of 18 quintals and apparatus for preparing of country made wine were recovered from the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery has been made from an orchard which is not of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been arrested from the place of seizure. It appears from the prosecution report that the seizure was made on 17.02.2011 whereas the prosecution report was transmitted to the learned C. J. M., Rohtas at Sasaram on 21.02.2011 and such delayed transmission of the prosecution report clouds the bonafide of accusation. It 2 is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never been involved in similar nature of offence. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 12 of 2011 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Rohtas at Sasaram, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)