Suresh ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20090 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
           1.     Suresh Manjhi Son of Bhageran Manjhi @ Baharan Manjhi Resident of
                  Village- Paura Madan Singh, (Mushahari Tola), P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali
           2.    Dipu Manjhi Son of Yugeshwar Manjhi @ Jugeshwar Manjhi Resident of
                 Village- Paura Madan Singh, (Mushahari Tola), P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Shivjee Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Khurshid Anwar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

                   permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application

                   with respect to petitioner no.2, namely, Dipu Manjhi, who was

                   arrested during pendency of the same.

                                3. Permission is accorded.

                                4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as

                   withdrawn with respect to petitioner no.2, namely, Dipu Manjhi.

                                5. The petitioner no.1 seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20090 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                            2/3




                       6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and the

          allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a sack.

                       7. 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 petitioner

          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.

                       8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       9. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner no.1, 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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20090 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court

                         where the case is pending/ successor Court in connection with

                         Sarai P. S. Case No.264 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid

                         down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                                      10.        The application stands allowed.

                                      11.        It is made clear that the learned trial Court

                         after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner no.1

                         shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

                         event, if it is found that petitioner no.1 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 no.1 is a person with

                         clean antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail

                         order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T