Lav KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31105 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Lav Kumar S/O Dinesh Jha Resident of Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Bathnaha,
                 Distt.- Sitamarhi.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr.Dwij Raj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-05-2026               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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and

                   32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has antecedent of five cases out of which four cases

                   are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 7.44

                   litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             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 he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31105 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                            2/3




          his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Sumant would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,

          who was also apprehended from the spot.

                   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 before the learned trial court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five 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

          Sitamarhi Excise P.S. Case No. 227 of 2026, 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 more

          than five cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the

          purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31105 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                          3/3




                        antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after

                        verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of five

                        cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                        be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T