Dismissed

Ganga Sah @ Gangadhar Sah @ Gango Sah v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Sept 2021CR. MISC./21724/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail in an IMFL case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. High Court rejected bail citing antecedents and accused status in four prior similar cases, granting liberty to renew the prayer after one year.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail rejected. Liberty granted to renew prayer after completing one year in custody.

Ganga Sah @ Gangadhar Sah @ Gango Sah Vs the State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21724 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Begusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Ganga Sah @ Gangadhar Sah @ Gango Sah S/O Ramvilash Sah @ Ram Bilash Saw R/O Village Bari Aghu, Gachhi, Ward No .45, P.S. Mufassil, District- Begusarai

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begam, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 15-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, about 627 litres of IMFL was recovered from the house of the petitioner.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or house of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 18.1.2021 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

¶14

Application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21724 of 2021(2) dt.15-09-2021 2/2

¶16

for the State who submits that the petitioner is accused in four cases under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 from before.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the antecedents of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶18

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

¶19

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶20

Bibhash

¶21

U T

Ganga Sah @ Gangadhar Sah @ Gango Sah v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Sah @ Gangadhar Sah @ Gango Sah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raushan Kumar Singh @ Tonu Singh Vs The State of BIhar

Dhanu Ram @ Dhanu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santu Rajbanshi Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Pandey Vs The State of Bihar