This order dismisses an anticipatory bail application as not maintainable referencing a Full Bench ruling. The petitioner faced arrest under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 Court held maintainability of such applications was barred by precedent.
Application 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.12360 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2020 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Satyendra Pandit S/O Rajendra Pandit R/Ov-Maw Dhaneshwarpur (WEST), P.S-Vidhyapati Nagar, District-Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 98 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
In view of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Binay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar reported in [2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (Full Bench)].
Accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
BT/- U T
1 issue framed by the court
whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of the Full Bench ruling in Ram Binay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Binay Yadav Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶13
[2019 (2) PLJR 1089 (Full Bench)]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satyendra Pandit
The State of Bihar
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
