Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26764 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Son of Late Gulab Sao R/O - Shivpur Tikiyatoli, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Arya For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.10/2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.10351 of 2026. It is further submitted that petitioner was granted the privilege of provisional anticipatory bail by an order dated 16.03.2026 with direction to the learned trial court to verify his criminal antecedent but on verification of criminal antecedent, it was found that petitioner had more antecedent than what was pleaded in Cr. Misc. No.10351/2026, hence his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26764 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 2/2 provisional anticipatory bail bonds was not accepted. It is next submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2026.
4. Learned APP Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad opposes the regular bail application and submits that petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands when he had sought anticipatory bail by filing Cr.Misc. No.10351/2026. It is thus submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.
5. After hearing the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
7. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T