Nageshwar Mahto @ Dhaneshwar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17339 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Nageshwar Mahto @ Dhaneshwar Mahto S/o Late Sakhichan Mahto @ Late
                 Sakhichandar Mahto Resident of Village - Madhurapur, Ward No. 12, P.S -
                 Phenhara, District - East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Karandeep Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-03-2026                  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

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is

                   of recovery of 40 litres of liquor from a bush near the house of

                   the petitioner.

                                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 even alleged

                   recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17339 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner, but then, is adjacent to his house 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 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, when admittedly petitioner is a person with clean

          antecedent.

                       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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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

          Phenhara P. S. Case No.20 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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17339 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         accepting the provisional bail bonds 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)
vikash/-

U          T