Patna High Court
Pandit Kishku @ Manoj KishkuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the open place of seizure, lack of clear evidence, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, pre‑arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted.
Summary
Pandit Kishku (Manoj Kishku) was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 25 litres of mahua liquor from a gallon. He claimed he was falsely implicated due to personal enmity, had no involvement with the seized liquor, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State opposed his pre‑arrest bail, while the petitioner’s counsel highlighted the open nature of the seizure location and lack of clear seizure details. The High Court, noting the open place of recovery, the petitioner’s clean record, and the absence of a precise seizure list, granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and verification of any other criminal antecedents. The order was conditioned on compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) and directed the District Court to verify the petitioner’s antecedents, after which the bail application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Whether the open place of seizure and lack of clear seizure details affect the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- open place seizure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25447 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Pandit Kishku @ Manoj Kishku S/o- Suraju Kishku, Resident of village- Tali
Bishanpur PS- Piri Bazar Dist-Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, as amended uptodate.
3. Allegation is of recovery of 25 litres of mahua
liquor from a gallon.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the case due to enmity. He has no concern either with the
seized liquor or trade of liquor in any manner. The place of
recovery is an open place which is accessible to anyone. The
petitioner has clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25447 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the F.I.R. and the fact that the place of recovery is an open place
which is accessible to anyone, the petitioner, above named, is
directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025, subject
to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C / Section 482 (2) BNSS.
7. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner
is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-
3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
9. Place of seizure is not clearly mentioned in the
Seizure list. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai, so that he can seek a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25447 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
report from the concerned officer who has prepared the seizure
list and has drawn the F.I.R. against the petitioner.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…