In an oral order, the Bombay High Court refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a prohibition case involving recovery of Mahua wine, noting the petitioner was an accused in three earlier cases for the same offences.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and the application is dismissed.
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. 1919 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2017 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
JAYRAM MANJHI, Son of Laloo Manjhi, R/o Manpur Suryapokhar, Bhuitoli, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District – Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kalyan Shankar ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a), 37(c) (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is recovery of 9 liters of Mahua wine from the house of the petitioner and there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused in earlier three cases mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition in the same offences.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 1919 of 2020(2) dt.26-02-2020 2/2
Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 182 of 2017 from the Court of learned Special Excise, Gaya.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
amitkumar/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail fearing arrest in a prohibition offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JAYRAM MANJHI
The State of Bihar
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
