Sanjog Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22391 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sanjog Ray S/O Ramanand Ray R/O Vill.- Gurmi, P.S.- Mushahari, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== 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.

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 (Amended Act 2018/2022).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 718.320 litres of liquor from the straw house of the petitioner.

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 a specific assertion has been made at para 9 of the anticipatory bail application that the straw house does not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 belong to the petitioner but then the police in a mechanical manner investigate and implicate. It is next submitted that off late police have started implicating accused having criminal antecedent in cases relating to excise for obvious reason. It is also submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the local person but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been implicated based on the secret information.

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.5,000/- (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 Muzaffarpur Excise P.S. Case No. 192 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22391 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 B.N.S.S.

7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than 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 has antecedent of only one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T