SANTA @ SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bihar Excise Act 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 SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate Mr.Anil Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 2 30-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 488.730 liter liquor from Arvind Singh’s house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession, it is next submitted that his name transpired in the confessional statement of Arvind Singh which has no evidentiary value. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44586 of 2022(2) dt.30-08-2022 anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 125 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Rishi/- U T (Satyavrat Verma, 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.