Allowed

Randhir Singh v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Dec 2020CR. MISC./29877/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case alleging cheating and forgery under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, finding a lack of prima facie case and no recovery of illicit liquor from his possessions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 to Special Judge, Excise Court Vaishali.

Randhir Singh Vs the State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29877 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-432 Year-2018 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RANDHIR SINGH S/o Vishwanath Singh Resident of Village-Totha, P.S.Lalganj, District-Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Bela Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 17-12-2020

¶12

Heard Mrs. Bela Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

¶13

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lalganj PS Case No. 432/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a), 32(2), 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶14

The allegation, as per FIR, is that the police, after getting a secret information that petitioner along with other accused persons have brought consignment of illicit liquor from a truck and the same is being unloaded in an orchard and field of village, Pakrikanth, arrived at the place of occurrence and recovered total quantity of 4502.600 litres of illicit liquor from a Mahindra 207 vehicle and from Tata Tiago car standing near the said orchard and field of one Binod Singh.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29877 of 2020(2) dt.17-12-2020 2/3

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been dragged in this case on the basis of disclosure made by village-Chaukidar. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and he has been implicated in this case with an oblique motive by village-Chaukidar. Learned counsel further submits that no liquor has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or from the vehicles belonging to him.

¶17

Learned counsel, referring to para-10 of the instant petition, submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicles from where illicit liquor has been recovered. Thus, learned counsel submits that from perusal of the FIR and material on record, it appears that no prima facie , case under the Excise Act is made out against the petitioner.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that no liquor has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or from the vehicles belonging to him, and petitioner has got no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, petitioner, RANDHIR SINGH shall

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29877 of 2020(2) dt.17-12-2020 3/3

¶21

be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Excise Court, Vaishali in connection with Lalganj PS Case No. 432/2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) CrPC.

¶22

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines of social distancing.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶24

perwez

¶25

U T

Randhir Singh v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Singh v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Yadav @ Fucho Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Dayal Ram Vs the State of Bihar

Ragho Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramjee Kumar Vs The Union of India through the Principal Secretary