Amar KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38449 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-575 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Amar Kumar Son of Bachhan Prasad Yadav @ Bachha Prasad Yadav
                 Resident of Village- Jhakra, Ward no. 7, PS- Karja Dist -Muzaffarpur, Bihar
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-06-2026                  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 30(a) and

                   32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,

                   2018/2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 53.040 litres of liquor from a hut

                   near the house of Rohit Kumar.

                                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

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

                   It is further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38449 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                            2/3




          based on the confessional statement of Rohit Kumar in police

          custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of

          law. It is next submitted that petitioner is the father of Rohit

          Kumar and no son would implicate his own father until pressure

          is applied.

                       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.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 Muzaffarpur

          Excise P.S. Case No. 575 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 two

          cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38449 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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 two cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T