RAJNISH SINGH v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 ss. 30(a), 36, 41(i)(ii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 2 18-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021 registered for the offences under Section 30(a), 36 and 41(i) (ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report and his name transpires only on the basis of the confessional statement of one co- accused namely Golu Saw. Further submission is that he is neither the owner of the alleged 10 wheeler truck bearing Reg. No.-CG04JB-4209 and 6 wheeler truck bearing Reg. No.-BPM- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74029 of 2022(2) dt.18-04-2023 4205 nor had he hired both the trucks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the petitioner, above named is directed to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Excise Act, Patna in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. anuradha/- U T (Arvind Srivastava, 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.