Dipu Ray @ Dipu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18308 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
                 ======================================================
                 Dipu Ray @ Dipu Kumar S/O Virendr Ray @ Birendra Ray R/O Village-
                 Belwa, P.S- Piprahi, Distt.- Sheohar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-03-2026                  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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases out of which one case is

                   under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 180 liters

                   of liquor from hut of the petitioner.

                                4. Learned      counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and it is asserted

                   and pleaded at Para-11 that the hut does not belong to the

                   petitioner and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18308 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                            2/3




          Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next

          submitted that if Chowkidar was aware of the involvement of

          the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the

          police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an

          aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that

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

          police starts implicating mechanically either at the instance of

          Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret

          information without holding a proper investigation.

                       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, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Piprahi

          P.S. Case No. 273 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18308 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                      event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two

                      cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

                      seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

                      Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

                      confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has

                      antecedent of two cases only, in that event the provisional

                      anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                              (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T