Rahul Sahni @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46389 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rahul Sahni @ Rahul Kumar son of Durga Sahni Resident Of Village -Karanpur Dakchani, Ps- Bochaha, Dist -Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sachin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2026 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 144 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner and 102 litres of liquor from the house of Vigan Manjhi. 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 the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46389 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 2/3 the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner. It is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but then it is submitted that it does not appear probable that local person would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner 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 for the petitioner, 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 Bochaha P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 7.

It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46389 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 3/3 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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T