PAPPU YADAV v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 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.Parashuram Singh Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ORAL ORDER 2 23-08-2023
#1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
#2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 25 liters of liquor from a kiln found near the Mathiya crossing.
#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Lalu Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54099 of 2023(2) dt.23-08-2023
#5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
#6. 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 trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sigori P.S. Case No. 199 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. GauravSinha/- 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.