Arjun Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14219 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Arjun Sahni Son of Munna Sahni R/o Mohalla - Mulaganj, P.S - Laheriasarai, District - Darbhanga, (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 590 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that total 336 litres of liquor was recovered from Pick-up.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused. The petitioner is not the owner of the said pick-up. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14219 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 three criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner.

5.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T