Patna High Court
Lakhan MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Lakhan Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail after learning that an FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act had been lodged alleging he recovered 36 litres of liquor from a public litchi orchard. He argued he has a clean antecedent, the alleged liquor was not in his possession, and the complaint originated from a hostile watchman rather than any prior police knowledge. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, considering the petitioner's clean record and the circumstances of the alleged recovery, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedents by the trial court. The order further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, given the alleged recovery from a public place and lack of possession, warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- public place
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31112 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2026 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================
Lakhan Mukhiya S/o Jagdeo Mukhiya R/o Village - Gangapur (Madhuban
Garha Par), PS - Madhuban, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
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 Section 30(a) 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 36 litres of liquor from a litchi orchard.
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 place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31112 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
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 Madhuban P.S. Case No. 102 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 even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31112 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.