Chandrika PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37046 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Chandrika Paswan S/o Late Jamun Paswan @ Yamuna Paswan Resident of
                 Village- Darpa, P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran, Motihari.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Dhandev Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Kanhiya Kishor
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 274 and 275 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the

                   Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a place

                   behind the house of the petitioner.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

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

                   recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged

                   recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37046 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner, but then, is adjacent to his house and he came to be

          implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an

          inimical term. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was

          aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence,

          then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the

          present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

          within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the

          sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Darpa P. S. Case No.42 of 2026, subject to the conditions

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. The application stands allowed.

                       8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after

          accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37046 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                           3/3




                         the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is

                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases,

                         then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of

                         obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before

                         this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail

                         order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found

                         that petitioner has antecedent of two cases only, in that event,

                         the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed

                         forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T