Suraj Mahto @ Suraj Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38860 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2026 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Suraj Mahto @ Suraj Kumar Mahto S/o Muni Mahto @ Munni Mahto
                 Resident of vill- Methaura, P.O.- Dubauli, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.- Saran at
                 Chapra

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-06-2026                   Heard Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, learned A.P.P. for the

                   State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   24.04.2026 in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 81 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 14.03.2026 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   Act, 2022.

                                3. Recovery is of 20 liters of country made liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears altogether

                   20 liters of country made liquor was recovered from behind the

                   house of the petitioner and petitioner and his family members
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38860 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                            2/3




          have been made accused in the present case and petitioners have

          been made accused in the present case merely on the basis of

          suspicion and except the suspicion, nothing has come during

          investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of

          the petitioner in the present occurrence and co-accused person,

          namely, Babita Devi @ Shanti Devi & Anr. have been granted

          bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order

          dated 17.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.25633 of 2026 and the

          petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2026.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries

          eight more cases other than the present one but he fairly submits

          that out of eight cases, the petitioner is on bail in five cases, and

          rest three cases are pending for consideration before the

          competent court of law, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail

          petition.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner,

          above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

          Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Exclusive Special Excise

          Court, Saran at Chapra in connection with Panapur P.S. Case

          No. 81 of 2026, with the following conditions:-
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38860 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                                           3/3




                                      (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

                         properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

                         and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

                         on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (III) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T