Ajay Rai @ Panduba v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21553 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2025 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Ajay Rai @ Panduba S/o Tuntun Rai R/o village - Usati, P.S - Baniyapur, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2026

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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if the Chawkidar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21553 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026 2/3 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 also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation of the case.

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 appearing on behalf of 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 414 of 2025, 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.21553 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026 3/3 and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases, 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 has antecedent of only two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T