Lav Prasad Pancham Keshari @ Lav Prasad Keshari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51700 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2026 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Lav Prasad Pancham Keshari @ Lav Prasad Keshari Son of Pancham Sao @ Pancham Sao Keshari Resident of Village- Prasadi English, P.S.- Arwal, District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Paras Nath For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 145 of 2026, 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 86 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 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 he came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51700 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioner on 2-9-2025 sold his vehicle, on which the learned APP submits that from perusal of the annexure-2 to the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that based on an agreement petitioner is claiming that he sold the motorcycle when mode of transferring of vehicle is not by way of an agreement hence it is submitted that it appears that it is a ploy adopted by the petitioner to absolve him of the offence.

5.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T