Dismissed

Surajdeo Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Mar 2021A.B.A./648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand refused to grant anticipatory bail to Surajdeo Ram for offences under Sections 272/273/290 IPC and Section 47(A) Excise Act. The Court held that the recovery of large quantities of illegal liquor from his kiosk and house outweighed the petitioner's submissions regarding procedural lapses and lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail granted in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Surajdeo Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 648 of 2021

¶3

Surajdeo Ram ….........Petitioner

¶4

Vrs.

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….......... Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.

¶8

03 /19.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Suraj Singh and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned A.P.P.

¶9

Petitioner seeks protection of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2020 for the offence registered under Section 272/273/290 of the I.P.C and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhwa.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no incriminating articles i.e., 17 (300ml each) bottles of country made liquor and 20 litres of illegal Mahuwa liquor along with 50 Kg Jawa Mahuwa recovered from his kiosk and house as alleged, has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the seizure list does not bear petitioner’s signature and there is a delay in sending the F.I.R and the seizure list to the learned Trial Court, which is in violation of Section 100(6) and 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner was not arrested from the spot either. As such he may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that recovery of country made liquor in huge quantity has been made from the house and kiosk of the petitioner. The raid was conducted on secret information that petitioner, a 51 years old man is selling illegal country made liquor in his kiosk

¶12

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Having regard to the gravity of the allegation and recovery of the

¶13

-2-

¶14

alleged country made liquor in substantial quantity from the kiosk and house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner is rejected.

¶15

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶16

A.Mohanty

Surajdeo Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajdeo Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiya Sao Alias Kanhaiya Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abbas Ansari Alias Abbas Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Mahatha Alias Krishna Kr Mahatha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Shamsher Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand