Rajeshwar Manjhi @ Rajeshwar Hazra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20531 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2026 Thana- Banuchhapar District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rajeshwar Manjhi @ Rajeshwar Hazra S/o- Late Bahadur Manjhi @ Late Lal Bihari Manjhi R/o Village- Lalgarh Mushari Toli Police Station - Bettiah Muffasil District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 3 litres of liquor from a bag near the bridge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large. It is further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20531 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 2/3 Chawkidar but then it is submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that it appears that the Chawkidar, in order to save the real culprits, falsely implicated the petitioner, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Banuchhapar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20531 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 3/3 and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T