Patna High Court
Ganauri Manjhi @ Gandura ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., subject to verification of the petitioners' antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed.
Summary
The petitioners, six individuals from Tetri Musahari village, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 10 litres of liquor. They argued that they were not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and that the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedent. It clarified that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional order would be confirmed. The application was allowed, granting anticipatory bail subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of arrest at the spot and lack of conscious possession justify anticipatory bail.
- Whether the omission of the informant’s name in the FIR affects the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- liquor recovery
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92010 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-525 Year-2021 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ganauri Manjhi @ Gandura Manjhi S/o Bulalu Manjhi @ Bullu Manjhi
Resident of Village- Tetri Musahari, P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
2. Shankar Manjhi S/o Dashrath Manjhi @ Dayal Manjhi Resident of Village-
Tetri Musahari, P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
3. Dharmendra Manjhi S/o Jagdish Manjhi Resident of Village- Tetri Musahari,
P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
4. Vasudev Manjhi S/o Karu Manjhi @ Bullu Manjhi Resident of Village- Tetri
Musahari, P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
5. Mishri Manjhi S/o Dukhan Manjhi @ Dukhdev Manjhi @ Dukhdevan
Manjhi Resident of Village- Tetri Musahari, P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
6. Vishnudev Manjhi @ Vishnu Dev Manjhi S/o Haathi Manjhi Resident of
Village- Tetri Musahari, P.S- Gaurichak, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Upadhyay
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 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
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from two plastic
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92010 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
gallons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and he has no concern with the gallon and he came to be
implicated at the instance of local person, but the name of the
person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed
in the 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 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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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
connection with Gaurichak P. S. Case No.525 of 2021, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92010 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
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 petitioners have antecedent of even 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 petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…