High CourtsSingle Bench

Sukri Devi vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 8 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 PAT CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 — Section 30(a), 30(c), 76(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32027 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

3.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Excise Case No.201 of 2020 dated 24.07.2020 instituted under Sections 30(a), 30(c) of the

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

4.

The allegation against the petitioner and two others is that when the police raided the western bank of the pond in village Hussainabad, on

information that accused were manufacturing and selling country made liquor, the persons ran away, but from the site, 7 litres country made liquor,

one machine for making country made liquor, 100 kgs. fermented Mahua, one 14.2 kg gas cylinder and gas stove were recovered.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was not caught at the spot and on suspicion has been made accused. It was submitted that

there is no recovery from her possession or from her house and further, that she is a lady having no criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP submitted that in the complaint itself it is written the petitioner was identified as the incident occurred in broad day light, but she

managed to escape as a crowd had gathered to witness the police raid. Thus, it was submitted that the present case shall not be maintainable in view

of bar under Section 76(2) of the Act.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9.

However, on the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court would observe that if the petitioner appears before the Court below

and prays for bail within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered, on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by

the present order.