Sanu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22188 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-443 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Sanu Mahto Son of Jogi Mahto @ Yogi Mahto Resident of Village - Purani
                 Bazar, Motipur, Police Station - Motipur, District - Muzaffarpur.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Raju Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Shaheen Begum
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026                  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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is

                   of recovery of 35 litres of liquor from a bush situated near

                   cattle-shed 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 alleged

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

                   petitioner, but then, is adjacent to his cattle-shed and he came to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22188 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/3




          be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on

          an inimical term. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was

          aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence,

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

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

          prosecution.

                       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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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

          Motipur P. S. Case No.443 of 2025, subject to the conditions

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

                       7. The application stands allowed.

                       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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22188 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     found that petitioner has antecedent of even 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U