Mithilesh Manjhi @ Mithilesh Kumar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39996 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2026 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Mithilesh Manjhi @ Mithilesh Kumar Manjhi S/o Tilak Manjhi R/o vill -
                 Rasauli, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.-Saran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Raushan Raj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                  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, 2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 7.200 litres of liquor from a bush

                   near house of petitioner and 5 litres of spirit from a tent house

                   godown . It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested

                   from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious

                   possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which

                   does not belong to the petitioner but then is adjacent to his

                   house and he has no concern or relation with the godown and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39996 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/3




          he came to be implicated at the instance of local person but then

          the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner

          is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case

          of the prosecution. It is also submitted that apprehended accused

          Jay Prakash has not named the petitioner.

                       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.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen 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 Panapur P.S. Case No.113/2026, 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

          three cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner

          had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39996 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if

                       on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of three

                       cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                       be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T