Suresh Ray @ Suresh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20553 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2026 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Suresh Ray @ Suresh Rai Son of Chandeshwar Rai Resident of Village Manpur Ratnawali, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 338 (467 of the I.P.C.), 336(3) (468 of I.P.C.), 340(2)(471 of I.P.C.) 238(201 of I.P.C.) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from a truck, altogether 2376 liters of illicit foreign liquor was recovered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20553 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 2/2 case. He also submits that the recovery has been made from the truck and the petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said truck. He further submits that the house of the petitioner is adjacent to the place where the recovery was made and he was forced by the police to become a witness of the seizure list, which he denied, upon which he has been implicated in this case. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 19.02.2026.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2026. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T