Bablu Paswan @ Bablu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33187 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2026 Thana- EXCISE ROSERA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
           1.     Bablu Paswan @ Bablu Kumar S/o Daani Paswan R/O Vill.- Paroriya, P.S.-
                  Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
           2.     Sujit Paswan @ Ravindra Paswan S/O Daani Paswan R/O Vill.- Paroriya,
                  P.S.- Hasanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Meena Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-05-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and

                   30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,

                   2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and

                   allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from a semi

                   constructed hut of the petitioners.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33187 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from their conscious possession and the hut was

          under construction, as such, no one was staying in the hut and,

          hence, was accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted

          that it appears that someone inimical to the family, concealed

          meager amount of liquor with an intent to implicate the entire

          family members of the petitioners. It is next submitted that no

          prudent person would use his own premises for committing an

          occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself

          and, hence, would get implicated.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the

          petitioners, above-named, in the event of their 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) each 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 Rosera Excise P.S. Case No. 30 of 2026, subject to the

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

          Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33187 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned

                     Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners

                     and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more

                     than one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of even one

                     case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their

                     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 no. 1 has antecedent of only one case and petitioner

                     no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T