Md. Sahzad @ Tiyain @ Shahzad vs The State Of Bihar on 16 June, 2025

0
1

Heard Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr.Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

connection with Sultanganj P.S.Case No.163 of 2020,FIR dated

10.06.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section

30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Sections 224,

225, 353, 34 of IPC.

3. Recovery is of 5.25 liters of foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the

FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27902 of 2025(2) dt.16-06-2025

well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from

conscious possession of the petiitoner rather the recovery has

been made from the house of co-accused person, namely, Jinnah

and allegation against the petitioner is that he stopped the police

personnel for arresting the co-accused person, namely, Jinnah

alongwith other co-accused persons. There is non-compliance

with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section

100 of Cr.P.C./Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. No case,

whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here