Patna High Court
Jai Prakash Manjhi @ Jay Prakash Manjhi @ Nanhaku ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted conditionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Jai Prakash Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that liquor was recovered from an orchard belonging to him and from a cattle shed of another person. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, that the orchard was a public place accessible to villagers, and that the allegation was a ploy by an adversary to implicate his family. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner had prior excise cases. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also stipulated that the trial court must verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from the petitioner’s orchard constitutes sufficient grounds for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21225 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2026 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Jai Prakash Manjhi @ Jay Prakash Manjhi @ Nanhaku Manjhi Son of
Khedan Manjhi Resident of Village- Kudarbadha, Salahan, P.S.- Garakha,
Distict- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 2 litres of liquor from the cattle shed
of Sukesh and 10.250 litres of liquor from an orchard of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and orchard is a place
outside the house and, thus, is accessible to villagers at large. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21225 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
is further submitted that no prudent person would use his own
orchard for committing an occurrence and, thus, would create
evidence against himself and, hence, would get implicated. It is
next submitted that it appears that someone inimical to the
family of the petitioner, concealed meager amount of liquor in
the orchard of the petitioner with an intent to implicate the
entire family members. 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.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 Garkha P.S. Case No. 91 of 2026,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21225 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
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
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
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 two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…