Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37220 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-725 Year-2020 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Singh R/o Village - Bariyarpur, Ward no. 37, PS - Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414, 420, 120B of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 36 and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and is in custody since 20-4-2026 and allegation is of recovery of 206.280 litres of liquor from different vehicles. It is next submitted that from possession of Sikindar Kumar, 17.280 litres of liquor from is alleged to have been recovered. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicles nor he was arrested from the spot and he came to be implicated based

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37220 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026 2/2 on confessional statement of apprehended-accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts implicating mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is in custody since 20-42026. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond 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 Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 725 of 2020.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T