Tuntun YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37062 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2026 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Tuntun Yadav S/o Ramanand @ Ramanand Yadav @ Naaty Yadav Resident
                 of Village- Bareta, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Mahishi, District- Saharsa

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Rashmi Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 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 Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 14.145 liters of liquor from thatched

                   hut of the petitioner.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession. It is also asserted

                   and submitted that the hut does not belong to the petitioner, but

                   then police in mechanical manner implicated the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37062 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                            2/3




          based on his antecedent. It is also submitted that though in the

          FIR it is alleged that local person disclosed the name of the

          petitioner, 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 has not been implicated in the based on secret

          information.

                       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 before the learned Trial Court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          5000/- (Rupees Five 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 Mahishi

          P.S. Case No. 55 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 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37062 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                        3/3




                      than 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 has antecedent of one

                      case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                      shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T