Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36971 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Vivek Kumar S/o Ram Dhyani Ray Resident of Village- Tulsinagar, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Usha Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026
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 offences punishable under Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS as well as Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 37.5 litres of liquor from cowshed of Ram Dhyani Ray.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that he is son of Ram Dhyani Ray. It is next submitted that no prudent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36971 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 2/3 person would use his own premises for committing an occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted that it appears that someone inimical to the family concealed the liquor in the cowshed which the place outside the house with an intent to implicate the entire family members and the petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the local person but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Rajepur P.S. Case No. 266 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36971 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026 3/3 Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T