Allowed
Sunil Rai @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
Patna HCCR. MISC./21764/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21764 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -277 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA CITY CHOWK District- PATNA
======================================================
SUNIL RAI @ SUNIL KUMAR, Son of Muni Lal Rai, resident of Hira Chand Sangat, P.S.- Chowk, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Bansh Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that total 226.5 liters wine is said to have been recovered.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is alleged that total 226.5 liters wine is recovered by the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21764 of 2018 (2) dt.16-04-2018
2/2
side of river. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Putul Rai @ Rangeela. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr. P.C.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ Complaint Case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge(Excise), Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 6129 of 2017,arising out of Chowk P.S. Case No. 277 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
U.K./U T
(Sudhir Singh, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether antecedents of the petitioner warrant grant of anticipatory bail in a prohibition case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SUNIL RAI @ SUNIL KUMAR
The State
SUDHIR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court