Sunil ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13110 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- Paivigha District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Manjhi Son of Late Ramashish Manjhi Resident of Village - Pai Bigha,
                 Bhuitoli, P.S. - Pai Bigha, Dist. - Gayaji.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ramesh Chandra, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-03-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

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

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 16 litres of liquor from the house of

                   Jitendra Manjhi and 6 litres of liquor from the house of the

                   petitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

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

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it

                   cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13110 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                            2/3




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

          was within his knowledge and after amendment in the Excise

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

          presumed offender has been done away with. It is next

          submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on the

          secret information which is the easiest way to implicate

          someone without holding a proper investigation of the case.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

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

          event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Pai Bigha P.S. Case No. 48 of 2025,

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

          the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial

          court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case,
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13110 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his

                     antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail

                     application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

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

                     petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T