Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bigan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.

Summary

Petitioner Bigan Mahto sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for alleged recovery of 198 litres of liquor from a bush. He argued that the liquor was not in his possession, the location did not belong to him, and that he was implicated by a hostile chawkidar without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.5,000 bail bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order is made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement and prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise offence
  • Section 30
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • criminal antecedent
  • provisional bail
  • police investigation

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21950 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Bigan Mahto S/O Fekan Mahto Resident of Village- Akhta, P.S.- Suppi, Dist-
                 Sitamarhi
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Nityanand, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-04-2026                  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 one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 198 litres of liquor from a bush.

                                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 even the alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

                   and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that

                   petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the

                   Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21950 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
                                            2/3




          submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement

          of the petitioner 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. 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 appearing on behalf of 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.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 Suppi P.S. Case

          No. 357 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.21950 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
                                                       3/3




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

                     case, 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 one case in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.