Patna High Court
Dev Rai @ Rajdeo RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for Dev Rai and granted provisional anticipatory bail to Dinesh Rai, subject to conditions and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Dev Rai and Dinesh Rai, filed anticipatory bail applications in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act. Dev Rai, who was arrested during the pendency of his application, sought to withdraw the bail request, which the court permitted, resulting in dismissal of his petition. Dinesh Rai, claiming a clean antecedent despite a prior case, applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the alleged recovery of liquor was from public premises and that a watchman had falsely implicated him. The State opposed the bail. The court granted Dinesh Rai provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed only if he is found to have no prior cases.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application can be withdrawn after the applicant's arrest.
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given alleged antecedent and facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- withdrawal of bail application
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9877 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-861 Year-2025 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
1. Dev Rai @ Rajdeo Rai S/o Sohan Rai R/o Village- Chakiya Tola Chitnawan,
PS- Maner, District- Patna
2. Dinesh Rai S/o Late Chanarik Rai R/o Village- Chakiya Tola Chitnawan,
PS- Maner, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Dev Rai @ Rajdeo Rai,
who during pendency of the same, was arrested.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Dev Rai @
Rajdeo Rai.
5. The petitioner no.2 seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9877 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
inadvertently at Para-3, it has been pleaded that petitioner no.2 is a
person with clean antecedent when he has antecedent of one case
as pleaded in the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that
allegation is of recovery of 880 litres of liquor from Sherpur
Bhadar area.
7. 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 public at large 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. It is next
submitted that it appears that the Chaukidar in order to save the
real culprit falsely implicated the petitioner.
8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner no.2, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9877 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
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
Maner P. S. Case No.861 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
10. The application stands allowed.
11. 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
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.