Pramendra Ram @ Parmendra RamversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12965 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2025 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Pramendra Ram @ Parmendra Ram Son of Rudal Ram Resident of Village-
                 Rupan Chak, P.S.- Hathua, District- Gopalganj

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

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

                   Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 72 litres of liquor from washroom of petitioner’s

                   house. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from

                   the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious

                   possession and the house in question is a joint family property,

                   as such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner

                   who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the

                   house was within his knowledge and after amendment in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12965 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                            2/3




          Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession

          and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to

          be implicated at the instance of local person but then name of

          the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner, is not

          disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a

          person with clean antecedent.

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

          application.

                       5. 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-bond in the

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

          like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District &

          Additional Sessions Judge-XIII-cum-Special Excise Court No.-

          I, Gopalganj in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No.335 of

          2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2)

          of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. The application stands allowed.

                       7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12965 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         accepting the provisional bail bond of the petitioner shall verify

                         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)

Sanjay/-

U          T