Patna High Court
DHARMENDRA MANJHIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail should be granted subject to verification of the petitioner's antecedent and compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Sections 30(a), 41(1) and 52 of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a place adjacent to his house. He asserted that he has a clean antecedent, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and questioned why the watchman (chaukidar) did not report the alleged involvement earlier. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC. The court clarified that if any antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of the liquor in the petitioner's possession and his claim of a clean antecedent justify granting bail.
- Whether the procedural lapse of the watchman in not reporting earlier affects the prosecution's case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(1), 52
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65020 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- Raghunathpur District- East Champaran
======================================================
DHARMENDRA MANJHI S/o Golu Manjhi R/o Village- Birta
Raghunathpur, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shamir Mehra
Mr. Anil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 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
Section 30(a), 41(1) and 52 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 20 litres of liquor from a place behind 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 is adjacent to his house and thus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65020 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar. 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
Raghunathpur P. S. Case No.122 of 2025, 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
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65020 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
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.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…