Ghanshyam Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30822 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Ghanshyam Ray Son of Baleshwar Ray Resident of Village- Gorai Ghaat, P.S.- Chakmehsi, District- Samastipur 2.
Nageshwar Mahto @ Nago Mahto Son of Late Kewal Mahto Resident of Village- Gorai Ghaat, P.S.- Chakmehsi, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 26.64 liters of liquor from house of petitioner no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30822 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/3 with certainty that it was petitioner no. 2 who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and they came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 has no concern or relation with petitioner no. 2.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30822 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 3/3 Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that any of the petitioners have antecedent of even one case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his antecedent, but after verification if it is found that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T