Vishanu Kumar @ Mamu @ MamaversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22102 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2026 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Vishanu Kumar @ Mamu @ Mama S/O Late Gulab Saw R/O Tikay Toli,
                  P.S- Sultanganj, District- Patna.
           2.    Ashish Mahto @ Tunni Mahto @ Tunni Mohta S/O Kapil Mahto R/O
                 Rampur Lane, P.S- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms.Sripriya Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Bishweshwar Ram
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners have antecedent of two cases out of which one case

                   is under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 128

                   litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner no. 2.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from their conscious possession and the house in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22102 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/3




          question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged

          with certainty that it was petitioner no. 2 who had kept the

          liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his

          knowledge. It is next submitted that after amendment in the

          Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession

          and presumed offender has been done away with and they came

          to be implicated at the instance of local people, but then the

          name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioners,

          is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case

          of the prosecution. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 1 has

          no concern with petitioner no. 2.

                   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, 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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)

          each 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 Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2026

          subject to the conditions as laid down under Section Section
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22102 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        482(2) of the BNSS.

                                 7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

                        shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the

                        event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than

                        two cases then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the

                        purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their

                        antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory

                        bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner

                        who had concealed his criminal antecedent before this Court, but

                        after verification if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of

                        two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                        be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T