Manohar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10105 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-446 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== Manohar Mahto S/o Late Godhan Mahto Resident of Village- Manupur, P.S.- Dighwara, Distt.- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 25.5 litres of liquor from a place near the house of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner, but then, is adjacent to his house and he came to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10105 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 2/3 implicated at the instance of local person and Chaukikdar, but then, it is submitted that petitioner is on an inimical term with the Chaukidar. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution and petitioner was not implicated based on secret information.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

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 Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum 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 Dighwara P. S. Case No.446 of 2025, subject to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10105 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 3/3 conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T