Anil Chubey @ Anil Chaubey v. The State of Bihar BIHAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Dubey For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 10-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 190 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
The recovery is of 36 liters of country made wine.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is in custody since 2.5.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to donate Rs. 15,000/- in some charitable organization without accepting his guilt.
Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47780 of 2024(2) dt.10-07-2024
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Exclusive Special Judge Excise Court-II, Gopalganj in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 190 of 2024.
This is also subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in Ramakrishna Mission, Chhapra and produce the receipt of the same before the Court below. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall be accepted after verifying the genuineness of the receipt produced by the petitioner. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T
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.