Tinku ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44247 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-528 Year-2024 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Tinku Manjhi Son of Dinesh Manjhi Resident of Village- Kaurihar, P.S.-
                  Raxaul, Distt.- East Champaran
           2.    Raju Manjhi S/o Mohan Manjhi Resident of Village- Kaurihar, P.S.- Raxaul,
                 Distt.- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Subodh Kumar Barnwal
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Arun Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-07-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner

                   no. 2 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 31.5 litres of liquor from the house

                   of Dasai Manjhi.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44247 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged

          recovery is from a house which does not belong to the

          petitioners and petitioners have no concern or relation with

          Dasai Manjhi and they came to be implicated at the instance of

          Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is next

          submitted that if Chowkidar was aware about the involvement

          of the petitioners 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.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                   6.     Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the

          event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)

          each 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 Raxaul P.S. Case No. 528 of 2024,

          subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of

          the BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44247 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
                                                      3/3




                    event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even

                    one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than one

                    case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes

                    of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before

                    this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not

                    be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his

                    criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is

                    found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and

                    petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case in that event the

                    provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                              (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U