Rajkishor ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27473 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2026 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Rajkishor Manjhi Son of Rajendra Manjhi R/o-Vill-Bansghat ,P.S-Chakia,
                  District-East Champaran
           2.    Tilak Manjhi Son of Late Ramsewak Manjhi R/o-Vill-Banghat P.S-Chakia,
                 District-East Champaran
           3.    Sanju Devi Wife of Achhelal Manjhi R/o-Vill-Koyla Belwa P.S-Chakia,
                 District-East Champaran
           4.     Nageena Manjhi @ Nagina Manjhi Son of Bhola Manjhi R/o-Vill-Bhuwan
                  Chhapra P.S-Chakia, District-East Champaran
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nand Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   09-07-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the

                   petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this bail application

                   with respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 with a liberty to the

                   petitioners to surrender before the learned Court below within a

                   period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail.

                               3. Permission is accorded.

                               4. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with

                   respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 with the liberty that the

                   petitioners surrender and seek regular bail before the learned

                   Court below, the same shall be considered on the same day on

                   its own merit in accordance with law and without being

                   prejudiced by any observation in the present order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27473 of 2026(4) dt.09-07-2026
                                            2/4




                       5. The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are apprehending their

          arrest in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 60 of 2026 for

          the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition

          and Excise Act.

                       6. Recovery is of total 225 liters of country made

          liquor.

                       7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

          petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have clean antecedent and they have

          falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits

          that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is forged and

          fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that

          35 liters of liquor was recovered from the hut of the petitioner

          no. 3, namely, Sanju Devi and 45 liters of liquor was recovered

          from the hut of petitioner no. 4, namely, Nageena Manjhi.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits from perusal

          of the seizure list it appears that the seizure list witnesses are

          police personnel so there is non-compliance of mandatory

          provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023. It is next

          submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioners rather the recovery has been made

          from the hut in question.

                          8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27473 of 2026(4) dt.09-07-2026
                                            3/4




          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner nos. 3 and 4.

                          9. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioners.

                          10. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has

          been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner nos.

          3 and 4 and the petitioners have clean antecedent,         let the

          petitioner nos. 3 and 4, namely, Sanju Devi and Nageena

          Manjhi, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court

          below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of

          the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Excise Court No.

          3, Civil Court, East Champaran at Motihari, Bihar-845401 in

          connection Chakia P.S. Case No. 60 of 2026 with subject to the

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

          Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27473 of 2026(4) dt.09-07-2026
                                                       4/4




                                     1. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall

                     be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the

                     court and shall remain physically present as directed by the

                     court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without

                     sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court

                     below.

                                     2. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the

                     witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                     for cancellation of bail.

                                     3. And further condition that the court below shall

                     verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in case at

                     any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their

                     criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

                     cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                     acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                     shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                     verification.



                                            (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T