SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 192

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Vinay Varma – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Shashank Chandra, Vatsal Verma.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Excise) Patna in Special Case No. 729 of 2017, arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016 under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 47(A) and 53(B) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 (in short ‘Excise Act’). By the impugned order, the learned court has directed the investigating agency to reinvestigate the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patliputra P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016 was registered on the basis of a news published in various daily newspapers on 26.04.2016. The news were published on the basis of a sting operation said to have been conducted by a private channel wherein a Member of Legislative Assembly, namely Vinay Varma (petitioner), was shown saying that he has brands of various liquors, further that he was shown giving offer to the team carrying out sting operation for drinking. It is alleged that when he was asked by the sting team, he stated that how can he throw when he has. It is further alleged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top