Ajit Rai @ Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25672 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ajit Rai @ Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Son of Ravindra Rai Resident of Village - Diwantok, Ward No. 06, P.S. Ganga Bridge, Distt. - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Aditi Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of six cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 600 litres of liquor from bank of Ganga river along with 6000 litres of fermented jawa mahua which was destroyed.
4. The 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 alleged recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25672 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026 2/3 and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next submitted that police in majority of cases implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar, local person, secret information and confessional statement in a mechanical manner without holding a proper investigation. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 Ganga Bridge P. S. Case No.173 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25672 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026 3/3
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than six cases, then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that petitioner has antecedent of six cases only, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T