Rahul Sahni @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46389 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Sahni @ Rahul Kumar son of Durga Sahni Resident Of Village
                 -Karanpur Dakchani, Ps- Bochaha, Dist -Muzaffarpur

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sachin Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-07-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 144 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner

                   and 102 litres of liquor from the house of Vigan Manjhi.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and the house in

                   question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46389 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
                                            2/3




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

          of the petitioner. It is next submitted that after amendment in the

          Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession

          and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to

          be implicated at the instance of local person, but then it is

          submitted that it does not appear probable that local person

          would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house. It

          is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean

          antecedent.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                   6.     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. 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 Bochaha P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, 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 petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46389 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026
                                                          3/3




                        then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

                        seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

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

                        confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a

                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T