Partly allowed

Roushan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Apr 2022CR. MISC./3098/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order addresses a bail application under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court granted regular bail to petitioner no. 1 due to lack of antecedents and rejected it for petitioner no. 2 due to prior records, allowing renewal after one year.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner no. 1 enlarged on bail; Petitioner no. 2 bail rejected with liberty to renew after 1 year custody.

Roushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3098 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2021 Thana- BELHAR District- Banka

¶3

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

¶4

1. ROUSHAN KUMAR S/o Janardhan Pd. Yadav R/o Village- Mohanpur, P.S.Dharhara, District- Munger.

¶5

Sahil Kumar @ Nikku S/o Late Anil Mandal Resident of VillageJagdishpur, P.S.- Dharhara, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 13-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 30(a) and 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, 252 litres of country liquor was recovered from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner no. 1 and in which the petitioner no. 2 was an assistant.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no incriminating article has been recovered from their possession or from their vehicle. They have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in custody since 4.9.2021 and

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3098 of 2022(2) dt.13-04-2022 2/2

¶17

the petitioner no. 1 has no criminal antecedent.

¶18

Heard learned APP for the State.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, together with the petitioner no. 2 having an antecedent under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 2 on bail and his prayer for bail is rejected.

¶20

Liberty is granted to the petitioner no. 2 to renew his prayer for bail on completing 1 year in custody.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case specially the petitioner no. 1 not having any criminal antecedent, the Court directs the petitioner no. 1 to be enlarged on bail in connection with Special Excise Case no. 663 of 2021 (arising out of Belhar P.S. Case no. 302 of 2021) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J-II, Banka.

¶22

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶23

Prakash/-

¶24

Roushan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roushan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daymala Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Sahni @ Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Rai @ Vijay Kumar @ Prashant Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vinod Paswan @ Binod Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Sinha @ Amit Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar