Dismissed

Ramavati Devi @ Ramawati Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2022CR. MISC./2177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in a case punishable under IPC and Bihar Prohibition Act alleging recovery of cough syrup from her vehicle. Court rejected the prayer due to the nature of accusation, gravity of offence, and huge quantity of prohibited articles recovered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected. Petitioner held not entitled to enlargement.

Ramavati Devi @ Ramawati Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2177 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2021 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

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

¶4

RAMAVATI DEVI @ RAMAWATI DEVI WIFE OF BHAIYA LAL YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BISUI BARAI, JAUNPUR, POLICE STATIONKETAKAR, DISTRICT- JAUNPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Sunil For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 01-07-2022

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶12

Petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act. .

¶13

As per the prosecution case, total 625 liters of cough syrup, i.e. 400 liters of Phensydyl new Cough Linctus and 225 liters of Dialex-DC Dry Cough Formula and some other articles were recovered from a vehicle of which this petitioner is registered owner.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. No incriminating article has been recovered from the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2177 of 2022(2) dt.01-07-2022 2/2

¶16

conscious possession of the petitioner and he is no way concerned with the alleged recovery. It is submitted that vehicle in question was given to Sakshi Transport Company for carrying the goods and in lieu of that owner of the vehicle gets consolidated freight charges and the petitioner is totally unware about loading and unloading of the contents/ material and the petitioner has no knowledge that seized materials were prohibited one. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that huge quantity of prohibited articles have been recovered from the vehicle of which this petitioner is registered owner.

¶18

Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶19

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶20

BKS/-

¶21

U T

Ramavati Devi @ Ramawati Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavati Devi @ Ramawati Devi 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

Sushant Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kaif Khan @ Kaif Hassan Vs the State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manjay Kumar Ray @ Avinash @ Avinash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar