Sunny Kumar @ Rahul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22229 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2026 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Sunny Kumar @ Rahul Son of Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Bishunpur, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 59.5 litres of liquor from cowshed of the petitioner and a motorcycle was seized. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and cowshed is a place outside the house and thus is accessible villagers at large. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own premises for committing an occurrence and thus would create

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22229 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 evidence against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that someone inimical to the family planted meager amount of liquor with an intent to implicate the entire family and petitioner is not the owner of the seized motorcycle and came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted thatif chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

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

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Govindpur P.S. Case No.35/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22229 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T