Rajesh Nut @ Bullet v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18627 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-798 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== Rajesh Nut @ Bullet Son of Dinesh Nut @ Dineshwar Nut Resident of Bajitbhoraha, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hemant Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Madhaurah Police Station Case No. 798 of 2025, dated 03.12.2025, disclosing offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.

3. The prosecution case, as per the first information report, is that the police, after receiving secret information that the petitioner, along with others, is manufacturing and selling illicit country-made liquor at Talpuraina Chawar, reached the place of occurrence and on seeing the police, the persons present there succeeded in fleeing away. Upon search, the police recovered 40 litres of illicit country-made liquor.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18627 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the disclosure made by local chowkidar. He further submits that the alleged recovery of liquor has been made from the Chawar, which is an open space and is accessible to all.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is having eight criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence.

6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is having eight criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence and the petitioner appears to be a habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √