Mantu KumarversusThe state of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39187 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-482 Year-2024 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Mantu Kumar S/O Puna Yadav Resident Of Village - Matagadha, Poice
                 Station- Mohanpur, Disrict- Gayah

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The state of Bihar Patna

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Arun Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 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 Fathepur P.S. Case No. 482 of 2024 registered

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

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                 3. Recovery is of total 1950 liters of country made

                   mahua liquor from a vehicle.

                                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 it appears from the

                   F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

                   possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made

                   from the vehicle in question. It is next submitted that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39187 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            2/4




          was not initially named in the FIR. It is next submitted that

          petitioner has been made an accused in the present case merely

          on the ground that petitioner is driver 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. It is next submitted that there is non-

          compliance of mandatory provisions of the BNSS and altogether

          1950 liters of country made mahua liquor was recovered from

          the vehicle in question.

                          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.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39187 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            3/4




          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the

          petitioner has clean antecedent and also the fact that petitioner

          has been made an accused in the present case merely on the

          ground that petitioner is driver 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 District

          and Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Exclusive Special Judge Excise-

          04, Gaya in connection with Fathepur P.S. Case No. 482 of

          2024, 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.39187 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