Sonu Kumar Sah @ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu SahversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18893 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Sonu Kumar Sah @ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sah S/o- Late Rambalak Sah R/o
                 Vill- Sahbajpur PS- Ahiyapur Dist- Muzaffarpur
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Anunay Shahi, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   26-03-2026                  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 Sections 30(a) and

                   32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,

                   2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of five cases out of which four cases

                   are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 144

                   litres of liquor from a litchi orchard and 105 litres of liquor from

                   a car.

                                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 neither the owner of the seized car nor the litchi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18893 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                            2/3




          orchard belongs to him. It is next submitted that petitioner came

          to be implicated based on the secret information which is the

          easiest way to implicate someone. It is also 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.

                       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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-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 Muzaffarpur

          Excise P.S. Case No. 534 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18893 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than five

                     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 five cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T