Dharmendra MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20570 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-802 Year-2025 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Dharmendra Mahto S/o Junarwi Mahto Resident of Village- Tarwa
                  Magarpal, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran
           2.     Bittu Kumar S/o Dharmendra Mahto Resident of Village- Tarwa Magarpal,
                  P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

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

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and

                   allegation is of recovery of 20 litres of liquor from the house of

                   the petitioners.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20570 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                            2/3




          submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as

          such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were the

          petitioners who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor

          kept in the house was within their knowledge and after

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

          deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away

          with. It is next submitted that petitioners came to be implicated

          at the instance of the Chawkidar with whom they are on an

          inimical term. It is also submitted that if the Chawkidar was

          aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence

          then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of

          the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners, above-named, in

          the event of their arrest or surrender 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)

          each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction

          of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20570 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Court in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 802 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 petitioners

                     and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more

                     than one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of even one

                     case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their

                     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 no. 1 has antecedent of only one case and petitioner

                     no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T