Ramayodhya MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45931 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-654 Year-2025 Thana- BANJARIA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ramayodhya Mahto S/o Late Janak Mahto Resident of Village- Siswa Bin
                 Toli, P.S.- Banjariya, 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.Suresh Prasad Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-07-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is

                   of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner

                   and 10 litres of liquor from the house of Nandan Kumar.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and even the house in

                   question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45931 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
                                            2/3




          in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his

          knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the

          concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been

          done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of

          Chaukidar. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable

          that Chaukidar would have known, who had concealed the

          liquor in the house.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

          within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the

          sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the

          like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court

          where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with

          Banjariya P. S. Case No.654 of 2025, subject to the conditions

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. The application stands allowed.

                       8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after

          accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45931 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
                                                           3/3




                         the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is

                         found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it

                         would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining

                         anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,

                         in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                         not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that

                         petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the

                         provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T