Dinesh Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42796 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- MADHWAPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Dinesh Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar S/O Kari Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Basuki, Bihari, P.S- Madhwapur, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026

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, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 99 litres of liquor from a Scorpio Vehicle along with Rs.12,700/- and an iron knife and an iron chain. It is further alleged that Rs.12,700/- was recovered from possession of Vikash Kumar and the knife and iron chain were recovered from possession of Md. Dilshad.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42796 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026 2/2 petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that apart from recovery of liquor, it is alleged that knife and iron chain were also recovered from possession of Md. Dilshad who disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and it might be a possibility that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond. It is next submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Madhwapur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court, Madhubani/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T