Bittu Kumar @ Navneet KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14487 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Bittu Kumar @ Navneet Kumar S/o Ram Pukar Rai R/o vill - Deopar, Ward
                 No. 3, P.S.- Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Prem Prakash Poddar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-03-2026                  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 Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 4.500 litres of liquor from the house

                   of Krishna Kumar @ Jhandu and Ram Bharat Rai and 112.980

                   litres of liquor from a pick-up parked in front of the house of

                   Ram Bharat Rai and Krishna Kumar.

                                4. 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 alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14487 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                            2/3




          and petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to

          be implicated based on the secret information which is the

          easiest way to implicate someone. It is further submitted that

          once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the

          police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the

          Chawkidar, local person, secret information or confessional

          statement 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 Pusa P.S. Case No. 146 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.14487 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                                       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