Patna High Court
Jay prakash MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Jay Prakash Mahto applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 58.100 litres of liquor concealed behind the house of Umesh Panjiyar. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the scene, had no possession of the liquor, and that the alleged location was not his property, contending that a hostile watchman had implicated him. The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if the trial court finds more than one prior case, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act when the accused claims lack of possession and no prior arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87444 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-392 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Jay prakash Mahto son of Khobhari Mahto Village -Majhauli @ Bhanudih, P.s
- Runisaidpur, District -Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Devendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 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) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 58.100 litres of liquor concealed
under straw behind the house of Umesh Panjiyar.
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 does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large and he has no concern or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87444 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
relation with Umesh and he came to be implicated at the
instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Runisaidpur P. S. Case No.392 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87444 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
it 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…