Pankaj Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6941 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-625 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Suman S/O Suresh Pandey R/O Mohalla- Gandhinagar Road no. 4, Bairiya, Koluha, Police Station- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar S.K., Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhdumpur P.S. Case No. 625 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that total 590.4 litres of liquor has been recovered from Pick-up.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused Pramod Kumar. The name of the petitioner transpires in this case only on the basis of that he is owner of the alleged vehicle. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6941 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/2 petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioner has three criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle from which huge quantity of liquor has been recovered.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T