Mithilesh Sardar @ Mithlesh SardarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21347 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Mithilesh Sardar @ Mithlesh Sardar son of Pawan Sardar Resident of Village-
                 Gamhariya, Ward no. 13, Ps- Bhargama, Dist- Araria

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Kanhiya Kishor
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from

                   courtyard of the petitioner.

                                4. 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 the house in

                   question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21347 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          in the courtyard or the liquor kept in the courtyard was within

          his knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018,

          the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has

          been done away with and he came to be implicated at the

          instance of local person/ chaukidar, but the name of the person,

          who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the

          F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution

          and the Chaukidar implicated the petitioner for the reason that

          they are on an inimical term.

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

          application.

                       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 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.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 Bhargama P. S. Case No.21 of 2026, subject to the

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

                       7. The application stands allowed.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21347 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                           3/3




                                      8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after

                         accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify

                         the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is

                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the

                         provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T