Jitendra Dhangad @ Jitendr DhangadversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37593 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2026 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Jitendra Dhangad @ Jitendr Dhangad Son of Ramchandra Dhangad @
                 Ramchandr Dhagnad Resident of village- Amvaman Bazar PS- Majhauliya
                 Distt -West Champaran
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                  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 132,

                   191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as

                   Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)

                   Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 8 litres of liquor from a place behind

                   the school.

                                4. 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 the alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37593 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

          and is accessible to villagers at large. It is next submitted that

          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 has not

          been implicated based on the 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 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.5,000/- (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 Majhauliya P.S.

          Case No. 321 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down

          under 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 more than one
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37593 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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 has antecedent of only one case in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T