MD. AMZAD @ AMZAD ALAM v. The State of Bihar PATNA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rita Verma, Addl. Public Prosecutor 2 15-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2018. It is alleged that 9.9 liters of Codeine Phosphate Syrup, Blurex Cough Syrup for dry cough, Anti Allergic, Anti Tussive and 99 piece of 100 ML of chlorpheniaramine Maleate was recovered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner’s name has figured during course of investigation in confessional statement of co-accused persons. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he is no way Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20132 of 2023(2) dt.15-05-2023 connected with the aforesaid recovery. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent of similar nature. Considering the facts of the case, in the event of arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner, above named, 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 the learned Special Excise Judge- Ist, Khagaria; in connection with Chautham Police Station Case No 199 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Kaushik/- U T (Prabhat Kumar 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.