Dipu Ray @ Dipu YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39858 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2026 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Dipu Ray @ Dipu Yadav S/o Late Mukti Ray @ Muktinarayan Ray R/o
                 Village - Masaha Narottam Ward no.10, P.S. - Bairgania, District - Sitamarhi

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Virendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-06-2026                    Heard Mr.Virendra Kumar,learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the

                   State.

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

                   09.04.2026 in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No. 80 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 15.03.2026 registered for the offence

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

                   Act, 2022.

                                3. Recovery is of 378 liters of Nepali Relax country

                   made liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused

                   persons, namely, Mantu Kumar and Rahul Kumar. Learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39858 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                            2/3




          counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused persons have

          disclosed that the petitioner was fled away from the place of

          occurrence and he was not arrested from the place of

          occurrence. Further submits that except the disclosure made by

          the apprehended co-accused persons, nothing has come during

          investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of

          the petitioner in the present occurrence and the petitioner is in

          custody since 09.04.2026.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner and submits that the name of the

          petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis

          of disclosure made by the co-accused persons, apart from that,

          the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present one

          but he fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in all the

          cases, 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 Exclusive Special Excise

          Judge-I, Sitamarhi or concerned court in connection with

          Bairgania       P.S. Case No. 80 of 2026, with the following

          conditions:-
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39858 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                                           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