Ram Ishwar Mahto @ Rameshwar Mahto v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The application stands allowed
Provisions considered
- 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/s Smiti Bharti Mr. Kanhiya Kishor ORAL ORDER 2 08-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 12 litres of liquor from a place behind the toilet of the house of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a toilet, which is situated on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88108 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 the land of Gudar Mahto and the petitioner came to be implicated based on secret information, which is the easiest way to implicate someone, when admittedly petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
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 Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special (Excise) Court-1, Sitamarhi in connection with Kanhauli P. S. Case No.110 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Operative part
The application stands allowed.
It is made clear that the learned trial Court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88108 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
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.