Jitendra Sahani @ Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27814 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jitendra Sahani @ Jitendra Kumar S/O Laxmi Sahani R/O Vill- Madhubani Ghat, Tola- Mathiya, P.s.- Muffasil Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prateek Tandon For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of ten cases and allegation is of recovery of 47.5 litres of liquor along with 2500 litres of spirit from house of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the house in question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27814 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 2/3 with certainty that it was the petitioner, 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, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of villagers, but then, it is asserted and submitted that liquor and spirit was not found from house of the petitioner rather was recovered from a place adjacent to the house of the petitioner, thus he came to be implicated, but then, off late police is implicating accused having antecedent in cases relating to liquor for obvious reason without holding a proper investigation.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 Motihari Muffasil P. S. Case No.633 of 2025, subject to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27814 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 3/3 conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than ten cases, then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that petitioner has antecedent of ten cases, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T