Pramod Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : For the Opposite Party : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH Mr.Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar, Advocate Mr.Sangeeta Sharma, APP ORAL ORDER 2 10-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections-30(a)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. The prosecution case, in short, is that 20 liters wine is recovered. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by local residents. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner. It is alleged that 20 liters wine is recovered near the chimney. The chimney, in question does not belong to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19038 of 2023(2) dt.10-05-2023 the petitioner. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13-04-2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar.) On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below/concerned Court in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A.K.V.//- U T (Sudhir Singh, J)
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.