Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38448 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2026 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Mahto S/o- Harinarayan Mahto Resident of
                  village- Sangram Fandah PS - Riga Distt-Sitamarhi
           2.     Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Mahto S/o- Ramlal Mahto Resident of village-
                  Sangram Fandah PS - Riga Distt-Sitamarhi
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Akbar Ali, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 111 of the

                   BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and

                   Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   pettioner no. 1 has antecedent of seven cases under the Excise

                   Act and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of five cases under the

                   Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 783 litres of liquor

                   from the bush near a Mango Orchard of Diplal.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38448 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged

          recovery is from a place which does not belong to the

          petitioners but then is accessible to villagers at large and they

          came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with

          whom they are on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if

          the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners

          in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to

          the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the

          case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that once an accused

          is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start

          implicating mechanically either at the instance of the

          Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret

          information without holding a proper investigation of the case.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the

          petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or

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

          on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand) each with two

          sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38448 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in

                     connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 150 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 petitioners

                     and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more

                     than seven cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more

                     than five cases, it would be presumed that petitioners had

                     concealed their 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 no. 1 has antecedent of only seven

                     cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only five cases, in

                     that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be

                     confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T