Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar Manjhi @ Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Pankaj Kumar Manjhi and Raj Kumar Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act alleging recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a bush adjacent to the petitioner's house. They argued that they were not arrested on the spot, the liquor was not in their conscious possession, and the complaint was based on the testimony of a watchman whose credibility was questioned. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents. The court stipulated that if the petitioners have more prior cases than disclosed, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The application was allowed, granting anticipatory bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from a location not owned by the petitioners justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91507 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2025 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Pankaj Kumar Manjhi @ Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Manjhi Son of Mani
Manjhi @ Mani Lal Manjhi Resident of Village- Shekhpura, P.S.- Amnour,
District- Saran
2. Raj Kumar Manjhi Son of Dharam Nath Manjhi Resident of Village-
Shekhpura, P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise
Act and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case under the
Excise Act and the allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor
from a bush behind the house of petitioner no.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91507 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
petitioners, but then, is adjacent to the house of the petitioner
no.1 and petitioners came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar, but then, tt is 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. It is next submitted that police in majority of cases
implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar,
local person, secret information and confessional statement in a
mechanical manner without holding proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91507 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
connection with Amnour P. S. Case No.318 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 petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than
two cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than one
case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes
of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 no.1 has antecedent of
only two cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of only one
case, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…