Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36971 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Vivek Kumar S/o Ram Dhyani Ray Resident of Village- Tulsinagar, P.S.-
                 Tariyani, District- Sheohar
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                             Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Usha Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-06-2026                  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 Sections 274 and

                   275 of the BNS as well as Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 37.5 litres of liquor from cowshed of Ram Dhyani

                   Ray.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that he is

                   son of Ram Dhyani Ray. It is next submitted that no prudent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36971 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                            2/3




          person would use his own premises for committing an

          occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself

          and, hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted that it

          appears that someone inimical to the family concealed the liquor

          in the cowshed which the place outside the house with an intent

          to implicate the entire family members and the petitioner came

          to be implicated at the instance of the local person but then the

          name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is

          not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of

          the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with

          clean antecedent.

                       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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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 Rajepur P.S. Case

          No. 266 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36971 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

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

                     Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner

                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,

                     it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his

                     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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T