Patna High Court
Mantu Singh @ Narendra Kr. PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Mantu Singh (also known as Narendra Kr. Patel), applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 and Sections 25(1‑b)A and 26 of the Arms Act. He is alleged to have been involved in the recovery of 20 litres of liquor, a country‑made pistol and 500 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua from a semi‑constructed hut, which he claims does not belong to him and that he was falsely implicated through secret information. The State opposed bail, highlighting his three prior cases, labeling him a history‑sheeter, and arguing that the investigation is at an early stage and he might abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court considered the State’s submissions and the seriousness of the offences, including the arms charge, and found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)A, 26
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition and excise
- arms act
- false implication
- history-sheeter
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7870 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-363 Year-2025 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Mantu Singh @ Narendra Kr. Patel S/o Late Lalbabu Singh R/o vill - Gahna,
P.S.- Haspura, Distt.- Aurangabad, At present Rajendra Nagar, Machhua Toli,
Langal Toli, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 as well as
Sections 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and allegation is of recovery
of 20 litres of liquor from a semi constructed hut along with a
country made pistol and 500 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua was
destroyed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that petitioner was not arrested from
the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7870 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/2
possession and the hut also does not belong to the petitioner nor he
has any concern with the liquor or Fermented Jawa Mahua and he
came to be implicated based on the secret information.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it is not
a case only under the Excise Act but then allegation is of recovery of
a country made pistol. It is further submitted that petitioner has
antecedent of three cases and none of the cases are under the Excise
Act which amply demonstrates that petitioner is a history-sheeter. It
is next submitted that investigation of the case is in its nascent stages
and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Obra P.S.
Case No. 363 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge
Excise-II, Aurangabad/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…