Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6541 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2025 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Choudhary Son of Late Saryug Mahto @ Saryug Chaudhary @ Late Saryoo Chaudhary R/o Vill. - Kushiyari, P.S. - Chakmehsi, Dist. - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from the poultry farm of the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own premises for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6541 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/3 committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated. It is further submitted that the poultry farm is a place where customers come often and it appears that someone inimical to the petitioner and his familly members planted meagre amount of liquor with an intent to harm the business of the petitioner. It is also submitted that he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is submitted that if the Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he 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 Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6541 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 3/3 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 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 submits that petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,500/- with Advocates' Association, Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from today. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T