The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent, have been falsely implicated in the present case and are having clean antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the F.I.R., has submitted that the provisions contained in Section 100 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, inasmuch as no seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence and instead, it has been stated in the F.I.R. that the recovered countrymade liquor along with the seizure list was taken to the house of one co-accused person namely Upendra Mandal and subsequently, witnesses were arranged, who had signed the seizure list near the house of the co-accused person namely Upendra Mandal. It is also submitted that the co-accused person namely Upendra Mandal has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2021, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 65560 of 2021. Lastly, it is submitted that neither the illicit liquor has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners nor the petitioners were present at the place from where the alleged illicit liquor is stated to have been recovered and moreover, admittedly, no witnesses had signed the seizure list at the house of the petitioners resulting in
