Avinash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7741 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Avinash Kumar son of Ram Swarth Mahto Resident Of Village- Thumma, Ward No 4, PS -Runnisaidpur, Distt- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Rabindra Kumar.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases out of which two cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 160.125 litres of liquor from house of Ram Swarath Mahto and two motorcycles were seized. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested 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 with certainty that it was petitioner, who had kept the liquor in the house or the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7741 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026 2/3 liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of his father Ram Swarath Mahto. It is also submitted that petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicle. It is further submitted that his father was pressurized to disclose the name of the petitioner since he was having criminal antecedents.

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

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen 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 Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.321/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7741 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026 3/3 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than three cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of three cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T