Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27681/2026bail rejected

Ram Babu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-24Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27681 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2019 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Ram Babu Mahto S/O Late Raja Mahto R/O Village- Sabbalpur, Gulamhiyachak, P.S- Nadi, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Manglam For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renuka Ratanakar ====================================================== 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.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No.281/2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Learned APP at the outset submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.77375/2025 and the petitioner was granted the privilege of provisional anticipatory bail by an order dated 26.11.2025 with direction the learned trial court to verify the criminal antecedent and it appears that after verification it was found that petitioner had antecedent of four cases when in Cr. Misc. No.77375/2025, it was recorded that petitioner has antecedent of one case. It is thus submitted that petitioner at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27681 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 2/2 time when he sought anticipatory bail application had not moved this court with clean hands. It is thus submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned APP that petitioner has antecedent of four cases but in Cr. Misc. No.77375/2025, the criminal antecedent was not disclosed.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 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