Allowed

Ranjit Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jun 2022CR. MISC./3742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner, a passenger whose vehicle was recovered with liquor, in connection with cases under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. The order sets standard bail conditions and requires the Registry to remove IT objections to issue the certified copy. John Doe, son of Ravindra Mahto was released on bail of Rs 10,000

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties.

Ranjit Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3742 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna

¶3

====================================================== RANJIT MAHTO, SON OF RAVINDRA MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAHAUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rita Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 22-06-2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶9

learned APP for the State.

¶10

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with PR Gaurichak Case No. L-18/2021 read with Special Case No. 5751 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a)/32(i)/32(iii)/41(1)/42(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

¶11

As per allegation, 150 litres of country made liquor has been recovered from a tempo bearing Registration No. BR01PM3041.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the tempo; rather he was a

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3742 of 2022(2) dt.22-06-2022 2/4

¶14

passenger. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2021.

¶16

It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the petition that the petitioner has not moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail.

¶17

It has further been stated that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

¶18

However, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Excise, Patna in connection with PR Gaurichak Case No. L-18/2021 read with Special Case No. 5751 of 2021, on the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3742 of 2022(2) dt.22-06-2022 3/4

¶22

investigation/trial will not hamper on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required.

¶23

(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly

¶24

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶25

(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent, the learned court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent despite his knowledge of the same.

¶26

(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, the learned court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶27

The application stands allowed accordingly.

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3742 of 2022(2) dt.22-06-2022 4/4

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar, J)

¶31

skm/-

¶32

U T

Ranjit Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Mahto 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

Naresh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Ganga Ram @ Ganga Mochi Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Chandra Rai @ Bachhawa @ Shivanand Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Suresh Suman @ Sailesh Kumar @ Sailesh Kumar Sah Vs the State of Bihar