Siwan v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 ss. 30(a), 34, 36
Key paragraphs
- Para 0707. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. anuradha/- U T (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 2 26-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with G.B. Nagar P.S. Case No. 301 of 2023 registered on 01.08.2023 for the alleged offences under Section 30(a), 34 and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
As per prosecution case, police received information about petitioner keeping country made liquor in his house and selling it. A raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and a person fled away from the spot. The neighbourhood people who assembled there disclosed the name of the petitioner as the escaped miscreant. In presence of two independent witnesses the house of the petitioner was searched and recovery of 10 litre of country made liquor was made from the courtyard of the house from the plastic can. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38629 of 2024(2) dt.26-06-2024
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is apparent from the F.I.R. that at the time of recovery petitioner was not present at the spot. The house from where recovery has been shown is a joint family house and the petitioner has no concern with the seized illegal liquor. The offence under Excise Act are not maintainable against the petitioner who is having no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that recovery has been shown from the house of the petitioner and in such circumstances anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.
Having regard to the facts that police recovered illicit liquor from the house of the petitioner, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. anuradha/- U T (Arun Kumar Jha, 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.