Sonu Mahto @ Sonu Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52343 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2025 Thana- LALIT NARAYAN UNIVERSITY District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Sonu Mahto @ Sonu Kumar Mahto Son of Late Jagdish Mahto Resident of Village - Gangwara, P.S.- Darbhanga Sadar, District - Darbhanga (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of 288 litres of Nepali liquor from the dilapidated house near Laxmisagar Road No. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that the dilapidated house, from where the alleged recovery has been made, does not belong to the petitioner and is easily accessible to anyone. Petitioner has no concern with the seized illicit liquor. Nothing has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52343 of 2025(2) dt.19-08-2025 2/2 recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has 6 criminal antecedents of similar nature and in all the cases, petitioner is on bail. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and he has got 6 criminal antecedents of similar nature. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the long criminal history of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T