Mohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18416 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- Paivigha District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Mohit Kumar S/o Vijay Sonar @ Vijay Prasad Resident of Pai Bigha Ward
                 No. 06, P.S.- Pai Bigha, District- Gayaji

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Vinod Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
                 ======================================================
                 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 the

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case in which police submitted

                   final form and allegation is of recovery of 55.210 litres of liquor

                   from the house of the petitioner.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and the house in

                   question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18416 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                            2/3




          the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge

          of the petitioner. It is next submitted that after amendment in

          the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed

          possession and presumed offender has been done away with and

          he came to be implicated based on secret information which is

          the easiest way to implicate someone 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.

          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 Paibigha

          P.S. Case No. 3 of 2026, 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 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18416 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                        than one case 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 one

                        case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be

                        confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T