Rajesh Manjhi @ Rajesh Kumar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4509 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
           1.     Rajesh Manjhi @ Rajesh Kumar Manjhi S/O Vinod Manjhi R/O Village -
                  Amata, P.S - Baheri, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
           2.    Phoolo Manjhi @ Phulo Kumar Manjhi S/O Jagdeesh Manjhi R/O Village -
                 Amata, P.S - Baheri, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
           3.    Jagdeesh Manjhi @ Jagdish Manjhi S/O Prameshwar Manjhi R/O Village -
                 Amata, P.S - Baheri, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Meena Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-01-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest

                   in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections

                   30(a) and 30(d) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have antecedent of one case and

                   petitioner no.3 is a person with clean antecedent and the allegation

                   is of recovery of 8.5 litres of liquor from the house of the accused

                   persons including the petitioners.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4509 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in

          question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged

          with certainty that it were the petitioners, who had kept the liquor

          in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their

          knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the

          concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been

          done away with and they came to be implicated based on secret

          information, which is the easiest way to implicate someone

          without holding a proper investigation, more so when person is

          already implicated in a case relating to excise from before.

                       5. Learned A.P.P.          opposes     the   anticipatory   bail

          application.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

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

          event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

          within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the

          sum 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 Baheri P. S. Case No.395 of 2025, subject to the conditions

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. The application stands allowed.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4509 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
                                                           3/3




                                      8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after

                         accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify

                         the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event, if it is

                         found that petitioner nos.1 and 2 have antecedent of more than one

                         case and petitioner no.3 has antecedent of even one case, then it

                         would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of obtaining

                         anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent before this Court,

                         in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                         not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that petitioner

                         nos.1 and 2 have antecedent of one case only and petitioner no.3

                         has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the provisional

                         anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

                                      9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

                         of the petitioner based on instruction submits that petitioner

                         undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs.2500/- with Lawyers’

                         Association, Patna High Court, Patna within a period of two weeks

                         from today.


                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T