Patna High Court
Manjeet Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 438 CrPC notwithstanding the alleged possession, provided the petitioners furnish bail bonds and the trial court verifies their antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 16 litres of liquor and 400 litres of raw material from a palani purportedly belonging to them. They contended that they were not arrested, no liquor was found in their possession, and the palani was a communal area not owned by them, alleging a mechanical police investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after hearing both sides, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with Section 438(2) conditions. The order further provided that the bail would be withdrawn if undisclosed antecedents are discovered, otherwise it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of arrest and lack of possession of the alleged liquor affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged ownership of the palani and the petitioners' criminal antecedents are relevant to the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- possession
- palani
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10034 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2026 Thana- Gaura P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
1. Manjeet Kumar Mahto Son of Dhaneshwar Mahto Resident of Mohalla-
Narharpur, Tola- Basantpur, Ps- Gaura, Dist- Saran
2. Ajay Kumar Mahto @ Madan Mahto son of Dhaneshwar Mahto Resident of
Mohalla- Narharpur, Tola- Basantpur, Ps- Gaura, Dist- Saran
3. Ranjeet Mahto @ Anarjeet Mahato @ Anarjeet Kumar Mahto son of
Dhaneshwar Mahto Resident of Mohalla- Narharpur, Tola- Basantpur, Ps-
Gaura, Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Shweta Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Renu Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases out of which one
is under the Excise Act and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are persons
with clean antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 16
litres of liquor from palani of the petitioners along with 400
litres of raw materials which was destroyed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10034 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and palani is a place
outside the house and is accessible to villagers at large. It is next
submitted that no prudent person would use their own vehicle
for committing a crime and thus, would create evidence against
themself and hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted
that though in the FIR, it is alleged that Palani belongs to the
petitioners, but then, the petitioners are not the owner of the said
palani, but then, the police in mechanical manner investigated
and implicated
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Gaura P. S. Case No.06 of 2026, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10034 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
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 petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than
two cases and petitioner nos.2 and 3 have antecedent of even
one case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the
purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their
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 no.1 has antecedent of
more than two cases and petitioner nos.2 and 3 have antecedent
of even one case, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail
order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…