Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29056/2026bail rejected

Pappu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-06Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29056 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Pappu Mahto son of Arbind Mahto Resident of Village- Haripur, P.S.- Alauli, DIstt- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Alauli P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024 registered for the offences under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per prosecution case, in a drive against illicit liquor, raids were conducted at different places, when the house of the petitioner was searched, recovery of 45 litres of country made Mahua liquor was made from his fodder house apart from 200 litres of raw material for preparation of illicit liquor. The petitioner was not present during search and seizure.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29056 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/2 the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the person or possession of the petitioner and recovery was made from the field but the police has shown the recovery from the fodder house of the petitioner. At the time of raid, no one was present in the house and witnesses of the seizure are police personnel. The mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure have not been followed. The petitioner is having clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail and hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T