Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar Dangi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30040 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2026 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar Dangi S/O Sarju Prasad @ Saryu Prasad R/O Vill - Kurmawan, P.S - Barachatti, Dist- Gaya ji (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026
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 the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) 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 23.6 litres of liquor from the cowshed of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and cowshed is a place outside the house. It is further submitted that no prudent person would use his own premises for committing an occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30040 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 get implicated. It is next submitted that it appears that some villagers inimical to the family concealed meager amount of liquor in the cowshed of the petitioner with an intent to implicate the entire family members and the name of the petitioner transpired based on the disclosure made by the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.5,000/- (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 Barachatti P.S. Case No. 97 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30040 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T