Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34679 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2026 Thana- Excise Jhanjharpur District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh Mahto Son of Lalo Mahto
                 Resident of - Daia Khaorwar, Ward no. 01, P.S.- Lakhnaur, District-
                 Madhubani, Bihar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Kalyan Shankar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                        Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                      2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026 registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(1) and

                   32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                    3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there

                   is an allegation of recovery of 108 liters of nepali liquor from

                   the vehicle in question.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He

          further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that

          nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

          the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the

          vehicle and altogether 108 liters of nepali liquor was recovered

          from the vehicle in question. It is next submitted that petitioner

          has been made an accused in the present case merely on the

          ground that petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question. It is

          next submitted that petitioner was not apprehended at the place

          of occurrence and he has no concern at all with the alleged

          recovery of liquor.

                          5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-

          arrest bail would not be maintainable.

                          6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          counsel for the petitioner.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the

          petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named,

          in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below

          within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the

          order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-

          (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Excise Act) Court

          Jhanjharpur in connection with Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of

          2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

          438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other

          following conditions:-

                          1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall

          be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the

          court and shall remain physically present as directed by the

          court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without

          sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court

          below.

                          2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

          for cancellation of bail.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                       4/4




                                     3. And further condition that the court below shall

                     verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                     any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                     criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                     cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                     acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                     shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                     verification.



                                            (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T