RANJIT CHAUDHARY @ RANJIT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45947 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2026 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjit Chaudhary @ Ranjit Kumar S/O Late Vijay Chaudhary Resident Of
                 Village- Sandalpur, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawada

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/S
                                                      Versus
                 The State Of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Akbar Ali
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-07-2026                  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

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor from a place

                   near a palm tree in front of the house of the petitioner.

                                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 a place, which does not belong to the

                   petitioner, but then, is adjacent to his house and he came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45947 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
                                            2/3




          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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Nardiganj P. S. Case No.156 of 2026, subject to the

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

                       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.45947 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
                                                           3/3




                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases,

                         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 has antecedent of two cases only, in that event,

                         the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed

                         forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T