Dismissed

Saryu Yadav @ Sarju Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Feb 2021CR. MISC./30810/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This admission/dismissal order held that an application for anticipatory bail under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, is not maintainable based on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar. The first petitioner's application was dismissed as not maintainable; the second petitioner was directed to seek regular bail in the court below.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner No. 2 directed to surrender and seek regular bail within four weeks.

Saryu Yadav @ Sarju Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30810 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2020 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

SARYU YADAV @ SARJU YADAV S/o Late Darshan Yadav R/o VillageMohkama, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada.

¶5

Chandeshwar Yadav S/o Late Ramswaroop Yadav R/o Village- Mohkama, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikramdeo Singh Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

7 19-02-2021

¶13

Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that petitioner no. 1 has been arrested during pendency of this application.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Rajauli P.S. Case No.23 of 2020, disclosing offence under Sections 30(a), 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶16

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in 2019(2) PLJR 1089 (F.B.) , and the provisions under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, this

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30810 of 2020(7) dt.19-02-2021 2/2

¶18

application for anticipatory bail cannot be maintained.

¶19

This application is accordingly dismissed as not

¶20

maintainable.

¶21

However, the petitioner No. 2 is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If he does so, his application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by rejection of the present application for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶22

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶23

Rajesh/-

¶24

U T

Saryu Yadav @ Sarju Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saryu Yadav @ Sarju Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawanand Labh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Kameshwar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Sikandar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Swan Kumar Paswan @ Sawan Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sinku Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Giri Vs the State of Bihar