Amarjeet Ram @ Amarjit RamversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32826 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Amarjeet Ram @ Amarjit Ram S/O Jodhi Ram Resident of Village- Siswa
                 Kharar, Ward No. 12, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran at
                 Motihari.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-05-2026                  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),

                   30(b) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 55.4 litres of liquor from the house of Rakesh Ram,

                   71 litres of liquor from the house of petitioner and 2 Kg.

                   wrapper from the house of Ramesh Sahni.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession.

                                5. It is further submitted that the house in question is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32826 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/3




          a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged with

          certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the

          house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge

          and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the

          concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been

          done away with. It is further submitted that petitioner came to

          be implicated based on the secret information which is the

          easiest way to implicate someone without holding a proper

          investigation of the case.

                       6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       7. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.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 Kalyanpur P.S.

          Case No. 05 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       8. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32826 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner

                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one

                     case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his

                     antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail

                     application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                     shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that

                     petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T