Uday Kumar @ Uday Shankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47246 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2025 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
           1.     Uday Kumar @ Uday Shankar Kumar S/o Ramji Ray R/o - Narayanpur
                  Dedhpura / Devpura, P.S- Mahnar, District - Vaishali
           2.    Gautam Kumar S/o Jokhan Rai R/o - Narayanpur Dedhpura / Devpura, P.S-
                 Mahnar, District - Vaishali

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Dr. Indiwar Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-07-2026               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 261 litres of liquor from a mango

                   orchard of Sakal Rai.

                             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.47246 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged

          recovery is from an orchard which does not belong to the

          petitioners and they have no concern or relation with Sakal Rai,

          but then 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 Mahnar P.S. Case No. 495 of 2025,

          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.47246 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
                                                          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 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         T