Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar Rai @Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Aug 2022CR. MISC./20034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order granting permission to withdraw the petition for the first petitioner. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the second petitioner under Cr.P.C. Section 438(2) regarding offences under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw petition for Petitioner 1; Anticipatory bail granted for Petitioner 2 subject to furnishing bonds and sureties.

Santosh Kumar Rai @Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20034 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2021 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Santosh Kumar Rai @SANTOSH Kumar S/O Barelal Rai Resident Of Village- Balban Tola, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran

¶5

Raj Kumar Rai Son Of Prayag Rai Resident Of Village- Balban Tola, P.S.Doriganj, District- Saran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nalin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 26-08-2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶13

learned APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

¶15

a case registered for the offences punishable under

¶16

Sections 30(a), 38 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

¶18

permission to withdraw the petition with regard to petitioner No. 1 namely Santosh Kumar Rai @ Santosh

¶19

Kumar.

¶20

Permission is accorded.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition with regard to

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20034 of 2022(2) dt.26-08-2022 2/3

¶23

petitioner No. 1 is permitted to be withdrawn.

¶24

There is recovery of 37 illicit country made

¶25

liquor from the gumti alleged to be owned by the petitioner No. 2.

¶26

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2 that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The liquor or the gumti from where recovery has been made do not belong to the petitioner No. 2. A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner No. 2 has no criminal antecedent.

¶27

In the facts and circumstance of the case, let the petitioner No. 2, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a

¶28

period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousands) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1^st Exclusive Special

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20034 of 2022(2) dt.26-08-2022 3/3

¶30

Excise Court, Saran at Chapra in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 319 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)

¶32

Shageer/-

¶33

U T

Santosh Kumar Rai @Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Rai @Santosh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Shakil @ Shakil Ahmad Vs the State of Bihar

Rampravesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Shravan Ghanghar @ Shravan Kumar @ Shravan Ram Vs the State of Bihar

Shobha Kumari Vs the State of Bihar

Dayanand Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Rai Vs the State of Bihar