Rujesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35911 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2026 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Rujesh Ram S/o Krishnath Ram R/o Village - Mathiya, Ward No. 8, P.S - Kesariya, District - East Champaran, Motihari 2.
Sanju Devi W/o Awdhesh Ram R/o Village - Mathiya, Ward No. 8, P.S - Kesariya, District - East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sumit Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and petitioner no.2 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the allegation is of recovery of 40 litres of liquor from house of petitioner no.1 and 21 litres of liquor from house of petitioner no.2 and 35 litres of liquor from house of Sonu Sahni.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35911 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were the petitioners, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their knowledge and they came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is also submitted that it does not appear probable that Chaukidar would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Kesariya P. S. Case No.155 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35911 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 3/3
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event, if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of even one case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 no.1 has antecedent of only one case and petitioner no.2 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T