Patna High Court
Shankar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Shankar Mahto applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 alleging recovery of 3062.52 litres of liquor from two Scorpio vehicles and a verandah not owned by him. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no possession of the liquor, and was implicated by a chawkidar with whom he had personal enmity, questioning the propriety of the police investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered the petitioner's claim of lack of direct possession, his prior three excise cases, and the need to prevent undue harassment. It granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. If more than three prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of three excise cases precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- police investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16366 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2025 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Shankar Mahto Son of Hira Mahto Resident of Village/Mohalla- Pandaul,
Bazar, Near Hanuman Temple, P.S. - Pandaul, District- Madhubani (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. (Mr.) Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a),
41(1), 31(1) and 31(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 3062.52 litres of liquor from two
Scorpio and from Verandah of the house situated opposite
BIADA Office, Plot No. 13.
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 petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicles and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16366 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
the Verandah does not belong to him. It is next submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the
Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. 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, confessional statement
or secret information without holding a proper investigation of
the case. It is next submitted that petitioner in similar manner
earlier also came to be implicated in cases relating to excise.
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 appearing on behalf of 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.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16366 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
is pending/Successor Court in connection with Pandaul P.S.
Case No. 283 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. However, 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
three cases, 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 three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…