Mahesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30749 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Mahesh Kumar Son of Gopal Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Karpuri
                 Nagar, Sughari, Pathra, P.S.- Govindpur (Thali), District- Nawada

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                     Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mrs. Sharda Kumari,                      learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection

                   with Nawada Excise P.S. Case No. 65 of 2026, F.I.R. dated

                   18.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   30(a) & 41 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016.

                                3. Recovery is of 117.00 liters of foreign liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is the

                   owner of the vehicle in question. He further submits that it

                   appears from the F.I.R. that nothing has been recovered from the

                   conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30749 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          made from the vehicle in question and one Rahul Kumar was

          arrested at the place of occurrence and he has disclosed that the

          petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the

          recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is non-

          compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery

          under Section 100 of Cr. P.C./ Section 103 of BNSS, 2023 No

          case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner

          under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                       5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-

          arrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that

          the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one

          but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition

          that the same is not pertaining to excise matter and the petitioner

          is on bail in the pending matter.

                       6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30749 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts that nothing has

          been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and

          the petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that

          the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question, let the

          petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender

          before the court below within a period of thirty days from the

          date of receipt of the order. be released on bail on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

          the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive

          Special Court, Excise-2, Nawada in connection with Nawada

          Excise PS. Case No. 65 of 2026, subject to the conditions as

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

          Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other

          following conditions:-

                       1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

          on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                       2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30749 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                           4/4




                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                          3. And further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                                       (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-

U          T