Patna HC granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner apprehending arrest in an illicit liquor case, requiring surrender within six weeks and furnishing bonds with sureties.
Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within six weeks, furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of equal amount.
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.22835 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2017 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dilip Pandey Son of Late Rajendra Pandey, Resident of Village-Mohmada, P.S.-Piprakothi, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar @ Sonu Babu Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 25-04-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) (b) (c) (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The prosecution case, in short, is that 130.92 liters wine is recovered.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused namely Sidheshwar Prasad Yadav. Except for this, there is no other substantive
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22835 of 2018(2) dt.25-04-2018 2/2
evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. It is alleged that 130.92 liters wine is recovered from the car in question. The car in question does not belong to the petitioner. 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/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 learned Special Judge, Excise, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 137/2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Pankaj/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible to be granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging DAP manufacturing and possession of liquor.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dilip Pandey
The State of Bihar
SUDHIR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUDHIR SINGH
Parties & counsel
