DHARAM RAJ KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62679 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2025 Thana- MANER District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 DHARAM RAJ KUMAR S/O LATE MOTAB LAL RAI R/O VILL-
                 JAMUNIPUR, PS-MANER, DIST-PATNA

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-01-2026               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 has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of

                   recovery of 2289 litres of liquor from a mini truck along with

                   one car and one motorcycle, which were seized from poultry

                   farm of the petitioner.

                             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 he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of one of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62679 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
                                            2/3




          seized motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person

          would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and

          thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get

          implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely

          unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner

          as alleged. It is next submitted that truck was not seized from

          the poultry farm, but the place adjacent to the poultry farm as

          such based on suspicion petitioner came to be implicated.

                   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 before the learned trial court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Maner

          P.S. Case No. 469 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 petitioner and
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62679 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                        in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more

                        than two cases 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 has antecedent of two

                        cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                        be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T