Saheb Manjhi @ Sahib ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31791 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-930 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Saheb Manjhi @ Sahib Manjhi S/o Late Chandra Dev Manjhi R/o Village -
                 Raghupur, P.S - Garkha, District - Saran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Hemant Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-05-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 16 litres of liquor from a bush

                   near palani of petitioner.

                                4. The 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 alleged

                   recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner

                   but then is adjacent to his palani and he came to be implicated at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
                                            2/3




          the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term.

          It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the

          involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he

          did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R.,

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       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 Court below

          within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the

          sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees 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 Garkha P. S. Case No.930 of 2025, subject to the

          conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. The application stands allowed.

                       8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after

          accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify

          the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is

          found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31791 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
                                                           3/3




                         it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of

                         obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before

                         this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail

                         order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found

                         that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the

                         provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T