Jhuna Mushhar @ Jhannu MushharversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39500 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2025 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Jhuna Mushhar @ Jhannu Mushhar S/O Vakil Mushhar R/O Village- Harpur,
                 P.S.- Itarhi, Distt.- Buxar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Madan Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-06-2026                  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) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 21 litres of liquor from house of the

                   petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested

                   from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious

                   possession and the house in question is a joint family property

                   as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner,

                   who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the

                   house was within his knowledge and after amendment in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39500 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                            2/3




          Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession

          and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to

          be implicated at the instance of chowkidar with whom he is on

          an inimical term. It is also submitted that if chowkidar was

          aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence

          then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the

          instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution.

                       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.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Itarhi P.S. Case No.198/2025, 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
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39500 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner 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 one

                       case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be

                       confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T