Bablu Singh @ Bablu Kumar Singh @ Bablu Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
anticipatory bail is refused
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 s. 37
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 504, 506
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Judgment
Dilip Singh Son of Late Sachidanand Singh Resident of Vill- Dahaur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna The State of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : : For the Petitioner/s For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ORAL ORDER 3 21-09-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Barh P.S. Case No.418 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, under Sections 504/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against six named accused persons including the present petitioners against whom there is allegation that they have gathered in connivance with each other at the Dalan of the informant and started drinking liquor, whereupon the informant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47997 of 2024(3) dt.21-09-2024 told them not to do so, then the accused persons including the petitioners started abusing the informant. When the informant opposed then they started firing upon the informant. Two persons were arrested and rest were fled away including the petitioners.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He further submits that informant and petitioners are nephew. Learned Counsel further submits that due to family dispute the present case has been lodged. He submits that the antecedent of the petitioners are not clean but they are on bail. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner No.1 is working outside the state but this pleading has nowhere mentioned in the bail application. As such, this Court cannot consider this pleading at all.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that allegation is there against the accused persons of taking wine in which anticipatory bail is not permissible. He further submits that antecedents of the petitioners are not clean. Petitioner No.1 has one antecedent and petitioner No.2 has four criminal antecedents.
Operative part
In this background, this Court is not inclined to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47997 of 2024(3) dt.21-09-2024 grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. However, in the event of surrender of the petitioners, the prayer for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: anticipatory bail is refused
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 37; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 504, 506; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27.
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.