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

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh
PANKAJ YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. MISC./43038/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43038 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2021 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria

======================================================

PANKAJ YADAV SON OF SAUDAGAR YADAV R/O VILLAGE-

CHANDPUR, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTICT- KHAGARIA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Meena Singh

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

2

29-10-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State

through virtual mode.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove

the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of eight

weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Gogri P.S. Case

No. 137 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section-30(a) of the

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 30 liters wine is

recovered.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged that 30

liters wine is recovered from the maize field in abandoned state. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43038 of 2021(2) dt.29-10-2021

2/2

maize field is said to be of the petitioner. Consel for the petitioner

submits that the said allegation is wrong as the maize field does not

belong to the petitioner. Nothing incriminating has been recovered

from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no

knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of

Section 100 Cr.P.C.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is

named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender

before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from

today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise Act,

Khagaria in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 137 of 2021,

subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

A.K.V.//-

(Sudhir Singh, J)

U

T

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 Back to top