The High Court at Patna dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Satyendra Prasad and Karu Mahto. The court held that due to huge recovery from a pond under the petitioners' possession in an excise case, it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed as it is not a fit case.
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.15209 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2011 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Nalanda
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Premchandra Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
4 23-11-2021 Heard the parties.
The Petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection
with Excise Case No. 45c3 Ex/2011 for the offence under section 47A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
In view of the fact that there is huge recovery from the pond which was under the possession of the petitioners, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail under the Excise Act. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ravi/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present case is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail given the huge recovery from the possession of the petitioners.
Satyendra Prasad
Karu Mahto
The State of Bihar
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
