Dilkhush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21284 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura ====================================================== Dilkhush Kumar son of Bhim Yadav Resident Of Village- Raghunathpur, Ward No10, P S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Madhepura Excise P.S. Case No. 28 of 2026 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, 360 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle, bearing registration No.BR11GC2089, Engine No.HL96k45057, Chassis No.MA1FH2HLWJ6K20048.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21284 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 2/2 on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused / Deepak Kumar and confessional statement made before police has no evidentiary value. Petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle. Petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR and it has been claimed that the petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle, I find that the learned District Court under such circumstances is required to verify the owner of the vehicle in question on the basis of registration number, chassis number and engine number and if it is found that the vehicle is not registered in the name of the petitioner and the same is not the stolen vehicle, then in that case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, on such terms and conditions, as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

7. The bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T