Patna High Court
Lakhiya MurmuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Lakhiya Murmu applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Special Statutes (BNSS) in connection with offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 132, 262, 263 of the BNSS and Sections 30(a) and 45 of the Excise Act. He asserted that he has a clean antecedent and that the alleged recovery of ten litres of liquor occurred at the house of another person, with no possession on his part, and that he was implicated by a watchman with whom he has an inimical relationship. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and other conditions under Section 438(2). The order also required the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,500 with the Advocates’ Association within two weeks. The provisional bail will be confirmed if the petitioner is found to have a clean antecedent, otherwise it will be set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438(2) for the offences alleged against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of no possession and clean antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the testimony of the watchman (chaukidar) affects the merit of the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 45
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- criminal antecedent
- liquor recovery
- Excise Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4547 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui
======================================================
Lakhiya Murmu Son of Dudhwa Murmu@ Ghaghwa Murmu R/o Village -
Kewal, P.S. - Chandramandi, Dist. - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanju Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 190, 132, 262 and 263 of the B.N.S. and
Sections 30(a) and 45 of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from the house of Bonga
Murmu.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from the house of Bonga with whom petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4547 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
no concern or relation and he came to be implicated at the
instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is
further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he
did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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
Chandramandi P. S. Case No.120 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4547 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his 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 is a person with clean antecedent, 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.1500/- with
Advocates’ Association, Patna High Court, Patna within a
period of two weeks from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…