AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36011 of 2022 · Patna High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The application stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Excise Act, 2016 ss. 30(a), 56(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Dhanraj Singh, S/O Late Dhanu Singh Resident Of Village- Marhi, P.S.- Sirdala, District- Nawada. The State Of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
Operative part
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Bijendra Kumar Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit ORAL ORDER 2 03-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 56(b) of the Excise Act, 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 4000 litres of mahua jawa which was destroyed at the spot and 160 litres of liquor from a jungle of village Marhi Kalaunda and 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36011 of 2022(2) dt.03-11-2022 petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession. It is next submitted that petitioners are neither the owner, nor the driver of the motorcycle and even alleged recovery is from a place which is accessible to public at large and the name of the petitioners transpired in the statement of the villagers, but then F.I.R. does not disclose the name of any of the villagers. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with G.O. Case No.171 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The application stands allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Excise Act, 2016 — ss. 30(a), 56(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(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.