RAJU RAY @ RAJU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27487 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2026 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 RAJU RAY @ RAJU KUMAR S/o- Devendra Ray R/v- Naua Chak,
                 Bhagwatpur PS - Sarairanjan Dist- Samastipur
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-05-2026                  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 eight cases out of which seven cases

                   are under the Excise Act as would manifest from the

                   supplementary affidavit and allegation is of recovery of 872

                   litres of liquor from a government land.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   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 is accessible to public at large. It is further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27487 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the

          Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next

          submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement

          of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform

          the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts

          an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also 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.

                       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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.40,000/-

          (Rupees Forty 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 Tajpur P.S. Case

          No. 45 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27487 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned

                     Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner

                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

                     eight 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 eight cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T