Arvind Kr. Sah @ Arvind Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11055 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Arvind Kr. Sah @ Arvind Kumar Sah Son of Sundeshwar Sah @ Sudeshwar Sah Resident of Village- Bakhri Bujurg, Ward No. 12, P.S.- Musrigharari, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Musrigharari PS Case No. 2 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 34(a), 34(b) and 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and in sum and substance, the allegation in the FIR is that the liquor purchased from the petitioner was found to be spurious on account of which the husband of the informant lost his eye and father-in-law of the informant died.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11055 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that entire allegation hinges around suspicion.

5.

Learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that husband of the informant lost his eye and father-in-law of the informant died on account of consuming spurious liquor purchased by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the offence is so grave that such persons who indulge in such activities may not be let off leniently. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing. 6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T