Dhiraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33149 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2026 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Dhiraj Kumar Son of Ganesh Ray Resident of Village- Jamla Mandal, P.S.-
                 Suppi, District- Sitamarhi

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad
                 ======================================================
                 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has antecedent of case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 153 litres of liquor from the house of

                   the petitioner.

                             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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33149 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




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

          of the petitioner. It is next submitted that 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 further 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 before the learned trial court

          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 Suppi

          P.S. Case No. 93 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33149 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                          3/3




                                 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 more

                        than 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 has antecedent of one

                        case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be

                        confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T