Congresi @ Sanjeet Sahni @ Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46835 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-528 Year-2025 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Congresi @ Sanjeet Sahni @ Sanjeet Kumar Son of Harendra Sahni Resident of Village - Khajauli Khanjahachak, P.S.- Lalganj, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shyameshwar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 140 litres of liquor from along 20000 litres of raw jawa from the bank of Gandak river. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46835 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026 2/3 at the instance of local people, 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 has not been implicated based on secret information. It is next submitted that if local people was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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 for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Lalganj P.S. Case No. 528 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7.
It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46835 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026 3/3 Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T