Mukesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2413 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Mukesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Ray Son of Sri Laxman
                 Rai @ Laxman Ray Resident of Village - Mahua Singh Rai, Police Station -
                 Mahua, District - Vaishali.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-01-2026                  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 seventeen cases under the Excise

                   Act and allegation is of recovery of 5257.065 litres of liquor

                   from three different vehicles.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicles and

                   came to be implicated based on the secret information which is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2413 of 2026(2) dt.17-01-2026
                                            2/3




          the easiest way to implicate someone. It is next 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.

          It is also submitted that petitioner in similar manner came to be

          implicated in earlier cases also.

                       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 before the learned trial court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty-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

          Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

          Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial

          court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2413 of 2026(2) dt.17-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than seventeen

                     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 seventeen cases in that event

                     the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed

                     forthwith.


                                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T