Manoj Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29213 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== Manoj Mahto S/o Tipan Mahto R/o Village- Manpur, P.S.- Dighwara, DistrictSaran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 391 of 2024, registered under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, 100 liters liquor was recovered from Diara.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The alleged recovery has been made from and open

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29213 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 2/2 place and the same is easily accessible to public at large. The petitioner has got three criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated coaccused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16504 of 2025. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has got three criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T