Rakesh Sah v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Outcome
Withdrawn
is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Permission is accorded and the said application Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14017 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. Re : Cr. Misc. No. 14017 of 2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public…
Judgment
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2023 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Mintu Raut @ Mintu Kumar Son of Naresh Raut Resident of Gonahi, P.S. - Patahi, District - East Champaran The State of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14017 of 2025) : For the Petitioner/s For the Opposite Party/s : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16543 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP 3 14-05-2025 Both the cases have been taken up together as they ORAL ORDER arise out of the same P.S. case.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of the petitioner Mintu Raut in Cr. Misc. No. 16543 of 2025 as the petitioner has been arrested and the same has become infructuous.
Operative part
The Permission is accorded and the said application Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14017 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. Re : Cr. Misc. No. 14017 of 2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. As per the prosecution case, the recovery is of 36 liters of Nepali Sofi Wine from a white sack which was thrown on the road.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his name has surfaced in this case on account of disclosure made by the local chowkidar and the local villagers. There is no recovery from the physical and conscious possession of the petitioner as the place of recovery is an open space which is accessible to all. Further, there is no independent witness to the said seizure list and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
The application is opposed by the learned APP for the State.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14017 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 3, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 304 of 2023, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation/trial. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.