Masomat Meena Devi @ Meena Devi v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Provisions considered
- Bihar Excise Act s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : Ms.Madhumala Kumari For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 03-10-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends her 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 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 37.2 litres of liquor from a place behind Durga temple.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from her conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large. It is next submitted that she came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom her husband is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72137 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 on an inimical term.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her 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. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jale P.S. Case No. 139 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that the learned trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that the petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to. SUMIT/- 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.