Chunmun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25828 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Chunmun Kumar Son of Late Doma Chaudhary Resident of Village- Hathani, P.S.- Dharmpura, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shivam Aniket, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026
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 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of recovery of 9.525 litres of liquor from Suryansh, 3.600 litres of liquor from Himanshu and 2.700 litres of liquor from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered from possession of the petitioner and he came to be implicated because of his antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25828 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that 2.700 litres of liquor was recovered from his possession and he was apprehended and thereafter he was kept at the check-post along with other accused but in the mid-night they fled. It is further submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner that would show a wrong signal.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Excise (Bhabua) P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned Special Excise Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabua/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T