Ramnath Manjhi @ Ramntha Mnjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13471 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-543 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ramnath Manjhi @ Ramntha Mnjhi S/O Dukhi Manjhi R/O VillageVishunpur Matiyarwa, P.S- Paharpur, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 31 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner and 2 litres of liquor from the house of Rinki Devi. 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 liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13471 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026 2/3 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 at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware of 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.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
5. 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 Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bond in the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise Court No.-01, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No.543 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13471 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026 3/3 accepting the provisional bail bond 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) Sanjay/- U T