Shyam Lal SahversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38334 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2025 Thana- KADWA District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Shyam Lal Sah S/o Narayan Sah Resident of Village - Sagdhar, Ward 08, P.S.
                 - Kadwa, Distt. Katihar.

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

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

2   17-06-2026                  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

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 38 litres of liquor from 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 the house in

                   question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38334 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his

          knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the

          concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been

          done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of

          Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also

          submitted that it does not appear probable that Chaukidar would

          have known who had concealed the liquor in the house.

                       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.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 Kudwa P. S. Case No.360 of 2025, 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.38334 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                           3/3




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

                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, 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 only one case, in that event, the

                         provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T