Ranjit Sahani @ Ranjit Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24661 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-533 Year-2025 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjit Sahani @ Ranjit Sahni Son of Rama Sahani Resident of village - Banparua, P.S.- Kesariya, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Harsha Shashwat, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2026

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 offences punishable under Sections 274, 275 of BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 60 litres of liquor from a motorcycle and 170 litres of liquor from a bush. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the seized vehicle as such the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and he came to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24661 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 2/3 implicated based on confessional statement of Gajendra in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts implicating mechanically either through chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation. It is further submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with.

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.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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 Kesariya P.S. Case No.533/2025, 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.24661 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 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 four cases, 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 four cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U