SharikversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39124 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Sharik S/o Dilshad Resident of village- Ambehata Dehat, Police Station-
                 Nakud, District- Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Manish Rai Sharma
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Asha Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-07-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition

                   and Excise Act.

                                3. Recovery is of total 868.5 liters of foreign liquor

                   from a pickup van.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated

                   in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as

                   alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits

                   that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered

                   from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39124 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            2/4




          recovery has been made from a pickup van in question. Learned

          counsel for the petitioner next submits that name of the

          petitioner has transpired in the present case on the basis of

          disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person, namely,

          Numan who has stated that petitioner is the owner of           the

          vehicle in question. It is next submitted that petitioner has been

          made an accused in the present case merely on the ground that

          petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question and except the

          aforesaid nothing has come during the investigation to suggest

          the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

                          5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the

          pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

                          6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39124 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            3/4




                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the

          petitioner has clean antecedent and petitioner has been made an

          accused in the present case merely on the ground that petitioner

          is owner of the vehicle in question, let the petitioner, above

          named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court

          below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of

          the order, 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 the learned Exclusive Excise Special

          Excise Court No.I, Buxar in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case

          No. 29 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with

          other following conditions:-

                          1. 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 absence on two consecutive dates without

          sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court

          below.

                          2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39124 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                                       4/4




                     for cancellation of bail.

                                  3. 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)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T