Chandan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37362 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2026 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Mahto S/o Ramakant Mahto Resident of Village- Sikandarpur, Ward
                 NO 14, P.S.- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal
                 ======================================================
                 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor from Garh tola

                   Diyara area near bank of river Ganga along with 2000 litres of

                   Jawa Mahua which was destroyed. It is next submitted 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 petitioner

                   and is accessible to villagers and he came to be implicated at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37362 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                            2/3




          instance of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is

          also submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement

          of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform

          the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an

          aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that

          once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the

          police starts implicating mechanically either through chowkidar,

          local person, confessional statement or secret information

          without holding a proper investigation.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, 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.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 Barahiya P.S. Case No.43/2026, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37362 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

                       event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

                       two cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner

                       had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the

                       provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if

                       on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two

                       cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                       be confirmed forthwith.



                                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T