Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 10 August, 2017
6. The reference to the Larger Bench in Cr. Misc. No.
21578 of 2017 ( Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar) was answered by the Division Bench in its order dated
06.11.2017 since reported in 2017(4) BLJ PHC-288, opining that the
Registry could not be restrained from entertaining anticipatory bail
petition in compliance of the order passed in Ashok Sahani's case
(supra). However, in paragraph-9 of the said order, it was
specifically stated that the aspect of the vires/validity/repugnancy of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40916 of 2019(2) dt.04-07-2019
3/4
Section 76(2) was not being considered as the same was already sub-
judice before the Apex Court.
Bisheshwar Mishra & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 9 August, 2016
The principles noticed by an earlier
Division Bench in Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016
(4) PLJR 1058 in the context of a similar bar to grant of anticipatory
bail under the provisions of SC/ST Act in the light of the Apex
Court's decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 8 SCC 795 were taken note of in paragraph-13, which cast a
duty upon the Court considering the pre-arrest bail of an accused, to
look into the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint to find out
whether ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were prima
facie made out or not before exercising its judicial discretion under
Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. It was therefore held that the law
regarding consideration of an application under Section 438 of the
Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused under an Act where
there is a bar to grant of anticipatory bail, had been settled as such.
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 September, 2012
The principles noticed by an earlier
Division Bench in Bisheshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, 2016
(4) PLJR 1058 in the context of a similar bar to grant of anticipatory
bail under the provisions of SC/ST Act in the light of the Apex
Court's decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 8 SCC 795 were taken note of in paragraph-13, which cast a
duty upon the Court considering the pre-arrest bail of an accused, to
look into the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint to find out
whether ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were prima
facie made out or not before exercising its judicial discretion under
Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. It was therefore held that the law
regarding consideration of an application under Section 438 of the
Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused under an Act where
there is a bar to grant of anticipatory bail, had been settled as such.
Suresh Prasad Singh & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 September, 2014
7. In a recent development, an order dated 19.12.2018 was
passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 69522 of
2018 (Suresh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar) rejecting the prayer
for anticipatory bail as not maintainable in view of Section 76(2) of
the Prohibition Act, 2016. The said order was assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court giving rise to Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 2581 of 2019 which came to be disposed of on
26.03.2019, inter alia, with the following observations--
Ram Vinay Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 June, 2017
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not shown
that any material change on the question of maintainability has come
about as a result of the recent judgment dated 17.05.2019 of a Full
Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2019 (Ram Vinay
Yadav vs. The State of Bihar).
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Ashok Sahani vs The State Of Bihar on 7 July, 2017
6. The reference to the Larger Bench in Cr. Misc. No.
21578 of 2017 ( Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar) was answered by the Division Bench in its order dated
06.11.2017 since reported in 2017(4) BLJ PHC-288, opining that the
Registry could not be restrained from entertaining anticipatory bail
petition in compliance of the order passed in Ashok Sahani's case
(supra). However, in paragraph-9 of the said order, it was
specifically stated that the aspect of the vires/validity/repugnancy of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40916 of 2019(2) dt.04-07-2019
3/4
Section 76(2) was not being considered as the same was already sub-
judice before the Apex Court.