Begusarai v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 ss. 30(a), 32(1), 32(2), 36, 41(i)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 s. 76(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Mayank/- U T (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 2 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S Case No. 11 of 2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(1), 32(2), 36, 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 and 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of I.P.C.
As per allegation in the FIR, total 1053 litres of illicit liquor has been recovered from the pick-up Van.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has two criminal antecedent except this case. He also submits that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58832 of 2024(2) dt.17-01-2025 offence. He has been falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner may affect the investigation of this case.
From perusal of the F.I.R., seizure list, impugned order and case diary, it appears that name of the petitioner surface from the statement of other apprehended person and there is two criminal antecedents against the petitioner of the same nature along with other serious offences. Prima facie, it appears involvement of the petitioner in this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the present anticipatory bail petition is barred by Section 76(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Mayank/- U T (Ramesh Chand Malviya, 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.