Tribhuwan yadav @ Tribhuwan Ray @ Gibhuwan RoyversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33610 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2026 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Tribhuwan yadav @ Tribhuwan Ray @ Gibhuwan Roy Son of Sudama Rai
                 Resident of village- Bhasedhawa, P.s.- Ghorasahan, District -East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Manjeet Kumar Mishra
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms.Meena 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 40.60 liters of liquor from 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.33610 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                            2/3




          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 and he came to be implicated at the

          instance of local person, but then it is submitted that if local

          person 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.

                   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 within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 102 of 2026, subject

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

          BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33610 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                          3/3




                        event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even 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 is a

                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T