Sheodayal Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40597 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Sheodayal Ram Son of Surendra Ram Resident of village- Murwa Khas, PsIsuapur, Dist- Saran 2.
Ram Ayodhya Ram Son of Late Ramekbal Ram @ Ram Ekbal Ram Resident of village- Murwa Khas, Ps- Isuapur, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr/s.Chetna For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026
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 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case, but inadvertently at Para-3, the same could not be recorded though the order impugned records about the criminal antecedent of petitioner no.2, as such inadvertently the said fact could not be pleaded at Para-3 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40597 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/3 that allegation is of recovery of 53 litres of liquor from the field of Badri Ram.
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 alleged recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioners and they came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioners have not been implicated based on secret information. It is further submitted that if local person was aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40597 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 3/3 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 Isuapur P. S. Case No.02 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
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 even one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than 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 even one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than one case, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T