Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17858/2026bail rejected

Dinesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-25Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17858 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2026 Thana- Excise Jhanjharpur District- Madhubani ====================================================== Dinesh Singh S/O Vindeshri Singh Resident Of Village- Daiyakharwar, Ward no. 1, P.s.- Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani- 847403 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Jhanjharpur Excise P.S. Case no. 24 of 2026 registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. As per the prosecution case, on information having been received and a raid being conducted, 36 litres of liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was taken into custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedents. No incriminating article has been recovered either from his possession or from his house. He is in custody since 2.2.2026 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17858 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 2/2

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State. It is submitted that besides the petitioner being arrested on the spot when the recovery of 36 litres of liquor took place from his house, the petitioner has three criminal antecedents including one under the old Excise Act and two under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR and the antecedents of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T