Bikram Sah @ Bikrama SahversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32951 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2026 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Bikram Sah @ Bikrama Sah S/o Bahali Sah R/o Village - Gidha Ward No. 05,
                 P.S - Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-05-2026                  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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases, out of which, one case is

                   under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 8.625 litres

                   of liquor from house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and the house in

                   question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged

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

                   the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32951 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




          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 and he came to be implicated at the

          instance of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is

          also submitted that if chowkidar was aware of 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.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.141/2026, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32951 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                         3/3




                       event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

                       two cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner

                       had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the

                       provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if

                       on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two

                       cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                       be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T