Patna High Court

Rajesh ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on a clean record.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajesh Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning alleged recovery of 110 litres of liquor from a location behind Raju Manjhi's house. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not caught in possession, and was implicated by a hostile watchman (chowkidar) who failed to inform police earlier. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if the petitioner is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession and alleged hostile implication justify provisional bail.
Whether the trial court must verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
provisional bail
criminal antecedent
watchman testimony

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26069 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2025 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Rajesh Manjhi S/o Jailal Manjhi @ Jai Mangal Manjhi R/o Village -
                 Vishunpur Tara, Musahari Tola, P.S. - Madhuban, District - East Champaran.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Rakesh Ranjan
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-04-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 110 litres of liquor from a place behind the house of

                   Raju Manjhi.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   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 he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26069 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                            2/3




          whom he is on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if

          Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in

          the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to

          institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the

          case of the prosecution.

                   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, 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. 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 Madhuban P.S. Case No. 369 of 2025 subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 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 in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

          then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26069 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…