The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, finding it not a fit case for such relief.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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.3560 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur
====================================================== BAIJU MAHTO S/O LATE RAJENDRA MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JITWARPUR NIZAMAT, P.S.- MUFFASIL DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
2 21-09-2021
Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the
State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 373 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on basis of suspicion. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes
the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3560 of 2021(2) dt.21-09-2021 2/2
accused in the first information report and there recovery of liquor from his room. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Whether the recovery of liquor from the petitioner's room and false implication warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baiju Mahto
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
