Patna High Court
Dharmendra ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Dharmendra Manjhi was implicated in the recovery of 62 litres of liquor from a motorcycle, an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was not arrested at the spot and the seized vehicle was not in his conscious possession, although it was registered in his name. The petitioner, who has three prior cases under the Excise Act, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that he was unaware of his friend Sikandar's alleged misuse of the vehicle. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.15,000 and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedents. It further stipulated that if more than three prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 482
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26490 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya
======================================================
Dharmendra Manjhi Son of Madho Manjhi Resident of village- Gannu Bigha,
Ps- Chakand, Dist- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Gulnar Begum
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 62 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot
as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession
and is not the owner of the seized vehicle but then mobile
belongs to him. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that his friend Sikandar would misuse the
mobile in the manner as alleged, who was also apprehended
from the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26490 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. 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.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands)
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 Chakand P.S. Case No.335/2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of three
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…