Diwana Kumar @ Madhusudan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32606 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2018 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Diwana Kumar @ Madhusudan Kumar S/o Kamdev Yadav R/o Vill. - Thatha,
                 P.S. - Mansi, Dist. - Khagaria.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                    Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 510 of 2018, F.I.R dated

                   25.12.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   30(a) and 32(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Recovery is of 160 liters of illicit country made

                   liquor.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

                   allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He

                   further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32606 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner

          rather the recovery of 160 liters of illicit liquor has been made

          from the vehicle in question and one Ankit Kumar was

          apprehended along with the liquor and he has disclosed that

          petitioner was also involved in the present crime in question. He

          further submits that the except the disclosure made by the co-

          accused person Ankit Kumar, nothing has come during

          investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in

          the present occurrence. 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.

                          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.L.J.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

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32606 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          counsel for the petitioner.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the

          petitioner has clean antecedent and the petitioner is made

          accused merely on the basis of disclosure made by the

          apprehended co-accused person, 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 the learned Special Judge Excise Court-2, Banka

          in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 510 of 2018, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

                          i. 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.

                          ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

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

          for cancellation of bail.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32606 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                        4/4




                                   iii. 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)
Vanisha/-

U      T