Patna High Court
Subhash Mahto @ Suvas MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with the power to cancel the bail if any prior case is found.
Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Mahto, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 288 litres of liquor and 1500 litres of Mahua from a paddy field that does not belong to him. He asserted that he has a clean antecedent, that nothing was found in his conscious possession, and that the complaint was filed by a hostile chowkidar. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedent within six weeks. If any prior case is discovered, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the allegations under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent and lack of possession warrants provisional bail pending verification.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26658 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Subhash Mahto @ Suvas Mahto Son of Balishtar Mahto Resident of Village-
Koirgawan, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32
and 41(1) 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 288 litres of liquor from a paddy field along with
1500 litres of Mahua pass, which was destroyed.
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 field which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26658 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with
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 Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 377 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26658 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…