The High Court dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail petition holding that such petitions are not maintainable for offences under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016, relying on prior coordinate bench decisions.
The anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.26352 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2019 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Raushani Devi @ Rosani Devi, aged about 27 years (F), Wife Ravi Kumar, Resident of Village-Daroga Tola, P.S-Banjariya, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26352 of 2019(2) dt.23-04-2019 2/3
of the Cr. P.C. arising out of the cases under the Excise, Act, 2016 before the Bench as defect free cases henceforth.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26352 of 2019(2) dt.23-04-2019 3/3
validity/repugnancy of Section 76(2) was not being considered as the same was already sub-judice before the Apex Court. The principles noticed by an earlier Division Bench in Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058 in the context of a similar bar to grant of anticipatory bail under the provisions of SC/ST Act in the light of the Apex Court’s decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 were taken note of in paragraph-13, which cast a duty upon the Court considering the prearrest bail of an accused, to look into the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint to find out whether ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out or not before exercising its judicial discretion under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. It was therefore held that the law regarding consideration of an application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused under an Act where there is a bar to grant of anticipatory bail, had been settled as such.
(Vikash Jain, J)
BT/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible to maintain an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.
Whether prior higher court decisions establish a bar on granting pre-arrest bail for offences under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶15
Ashok Sahani Vs. The State of Bihar, 2017(3) PLJR 632
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶18
Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶19
Barun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶22
Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 · Who else cites this
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of BiharFollowed¶22
Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 1058
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Raushani Devi @ Rosani Devi
The State of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
