LAL MOHAN MANJHI v. The State of Bihar BIHAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The application stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 186, 323, 332, 333, 337, 338, 341, 353, 393, 427, 504
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 s. 45
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The application stands allowed. krishnakant/- U T (Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ORAL ORDER 2 20-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Barabar Prayatak P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 332, 333, 186, 353, 337, 338, 393, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 .
As per prosecution story, informant received secret information regarding distilling and trading of Mahua wine at the house of co-accused Nagendra Manjhi. On the said information, 100 litre Jawa Mahua as well as 15 litre illicit liquor was recovered from the house of co-accused Nagendra Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43412 of 2024(2) dt.20-07-2024 Manjhi. It is alleged that while informant was making the seizure list a mob of about 50 persons including petitioner surrounded and attacked the informant and Police party by means of lathi, danda and fled away with the recovered wine as well as breaking the glass of the Police Jeep in question by pelting stones and also attempted to loot the rifle of police men.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during course of investigation, the glass of Police Jeep in question has not been found broken and no injury has been sustained by any of the Police party. He further submits that petitioner is merely a member of mob and he was not found at the place of occurrence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of village politics. Petitioner having criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail. In the light of given facts and circumstances of the case no offence is made out against petitioner under the provision of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an argument advanced on behalf of the both sides as well as material available on record, in the event of surrender or arrest before the concerned court within six weeks from today, be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43412 of 2024(2) dt.20-07-2024 released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Exclusive Special Judge, Excise- 1st, Jehanabad in connection with Barabar Prayatak P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Operative part
The application stands allowed. krishnakant/- U T (Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
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?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 148, 149, 186, 323, 332, 333, 337, 338, 341, 353, 393, 427, 504; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 45; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; 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.