Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10329 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2021 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar Rai S/o- Late Nanhak Rai R/v- Baburbani PsSonepur Dist- Saran 2.

Raj Kumar @ Rajkumar Rai S/o- Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar Rai R/vBaburbani Ps- Sonepur Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 38 and 40(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 9 litres of liquor from house of petitioner no.1 and 130 litres of liquor from house of Manoj Rai. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1 and the house in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10329 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 2/3 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 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 petitioners have no concern or relation with Manoj and they came to be implicated at the instance of local person but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioners have not been implicated based on secret information.

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

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each 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 Sonepur P.S. Case No.563/2021, subject to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10329 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026 3/3 the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with but if after verification it is found that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T