This order dismissed the anticipatory bail prayer for the first petitioner, Pintu Manjhi, as he died during pendency. The prayer for the second petitioner, Pappu Manjhi, was dismissed as not maintainable in a case under the Bihar Excise Act.
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.20129 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-728 Year-2019 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Yadav- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman- A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-08-2020 The defects, as pointed out by the office, be ignored.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.
At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informs that petitioner no.1, namely, Pintu Manjhi died during the pendency of this petition.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submission, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1, namely, Pintu Manjhi stands dismissed being infructuous.
So far as petitioner no.2, namely, Pappu Manjhi is concerned, he apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihta P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20129 of 2020(2) dt.17-08-2020 2/2
S. Case No.728 of 2019, corresponding to Special Case No.6677 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
According to prosecution report of the informant, the recovery of countrymade liquor was made from the house of petitioner no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 submits that both the seizure list witnesses are of different villages and, therefore, the aforesaid fact creates doubt about the so called recovery. However, I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submissions and, in my view, the anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner no.2, namely, Pappu Manjhi is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioner no.2, namely, Pappu Manjhi stands dismissed being not maintainable.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
vikash/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable for a petitioner who has died during pendency of the petition.
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable for a petitioner apprehending arrest for offences under the Bihar Excise Act.
Pintu Manjhi
Pappu Manjhi
The State of Bihar
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
