Ranjan Kumar @ Raju RayversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38885 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2026 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjan Kumar @ Raju Ray S/o Balistar Yadav @ Balistar Ray R/o Village-
                 Baikunthpur, P.S- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
                 ======================================================
                 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) and

                   41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 200 litres of spirit from a Banana

                   orchard behind the house of Bhagwan Ram and 80 litres of

                   liquor from Bolero vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioner

                   was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered

                   from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the

                   Banana orchard and he came to be implicated based on the fact

                   that he is owner of the seized Bolero vehicle. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38885 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                            2/3




          submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for

          committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence

          against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also

          submitted that the petitioner was completely unaware that his

          driver would misuse his vehicle in the manner as alleged who

          also fled from the spot.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, 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.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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 Baikunthpur P.S. Case No.174/2026, subject

          to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

          four cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38885 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the

                       provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if

                       on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of four

                       cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                       be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T