Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18547/2026bail rejected

Munna Rai @ Munna Kumar @ Munna Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-06Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18547 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2025 Thana- PARSA District- Saran ====================================================== Munna Rai @ Munna Kumar @ Munna Ray, S/o Shambu Ray, Resident of Village- Jaminpur, P.S.- Derni, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 390 of 2025 dated 19.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. As per allegation, 320 litres of illicit country made liquor has been recovered from a Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. WB-24Y-2471. As per further case of the Police, the driver of the vehicle was trying to run away with the vehicle after dashing. However, the villagers tried to apprehend the driver but he fled away leaving behind the car.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 case. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence nor he was any way connected with the alleged offence because neither he was owner nor driver of the vehicle in question.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has been made accused in two other cases of Excise Act.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature which shows that he is habitual offenders of Excise Act and, therefore, he does not deserve bail.

8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

10. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before learned court below and in case of surrender, learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 court below is requested to hear the bail petition of the petitioner on the same day.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T