Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 37 in The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Shweta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 19 October, 2022
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. It is alleged that
16 liters wine is recovered from the joint house of the petitioner. The
name of the petitioner has transpired as the recovery is made from
the joint house of the petitioner where other family members also
reside. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to
suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7021 of 2023(2) dt.20-04-2023
2/2
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. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated
13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Section 32 in The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1