Suresh Manjhi @ Suresh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3860 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2025 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Suresh Manjhi @ Suresh Mahto S/o Late Ramprit Manjhi Resident of Village-Barwadih Dhanger Toli, Police Station-Adapur, District-East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2026

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), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the excise act and allegation is of recovery of 100 liters of liquor from the house of the petitioner and Nandlal Manjhi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3860 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026 2/3 with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own premises for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar and local person, but then it is submitted that if Chowkidar and local person were aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why they did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

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 Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Adapur P.S. Case No. 387 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3860 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026 3/3 under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instruction, undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs. 2500/- with Advocates' Association, Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from today.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T