Chandan Kumar @ MunnaversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10717 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Kumar @ Munna Son of Surendra Prasad Singh @ Nanki @ Suresh
                 Singh Resident of Village -Ladaura PS -Kalyanpur District -Samastipur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Ranjan Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Ramesh Chandra
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-02-2026                  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

                   Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of

                   recovery of 3602.16 litres of liquor from a truck.

                                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 is not the owner of

                   the seized truck and he came to be implicated at the instance of

                   Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further

                   submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10717 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the

          police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an

          aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that

          off late, police has started implicating accused with antecedent

          in cases relating to excise without holding a proper

          investigation.

                       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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) 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 Kalyanpur P. S. Case No.08 of 2026, 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

          the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10717 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
                                                           3/3




                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than four cases,

                         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 has antecedent of four cases only, in that event,

                         the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed

                         forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T