Lalbabu Manjhi @ Lalbabu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26462 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2026 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Lalbabu Manjhi @ Lalbabu Mahto S/o Sonelal Manjhi R/o - Kaudhiar Dhangadtoli, P.S - Raxaul, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishal Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit ====================================================== 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 15.75 litres of liquor from house of Harinarayan, 29.25 litres of liquor from house of petitioner and 5 litres of liquor from house of Ramnarayan. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner, who had kept the liquor in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26462 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/3 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 he came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner 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.

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.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Raxaul P.S. Case No.87/2026, 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 shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26462 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 3/3 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, 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 one case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T