Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35666 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2021 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Pintu Kumar S/o Suresh Ram @ Saresh Ram R/o Village - Mahuwan, P.S -
                 Madanpur, District - Aurangabad

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-07-2026                     Heard Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2021, F.I.R

                   dated 14.04.2021 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Recovery is of 210 liters of spirit.

                                   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

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

                   further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure

                   list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35666 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            2/4




          possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has been made

          accused in present case on the basis of the disclosure made by

          the co-accused person namely, Rajesh Sao, who has stated that

          he has sold the one of the motorcycle in question to the

          petitioner. Petitioner was initially not named in the FIR. Except

          the disclosure, nothing has come during investigation which

          suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present

          occurrence. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the

          petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                          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

          counsel for the petitioner.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35666 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            3/4




          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the

          petitioner has clean antecedent and the petitioner has been made

          accused merely on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended

          co-accused who has stated that he has sold the motorcycle in

          question to the petitioner, 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 District and Additional Sessions

          Judge cum Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1,

          Aurangabad in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 80 of

          2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

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

          following conditions:-

                          i. 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.

                          ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35666 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                                        4/4




                      for cancellation of bail.

                                   iii. 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)
Vanisha/-

U      T