Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Jhunna Singh @ Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51725 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2026 Thana- Raghunathpur District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Jhunna Singh @ Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh S/o Rakesh Singh @ Pappu Singh Resident of village - Sapahi Britiyatola, PSRaghunathpur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kalyan Shankar, A.P.P.
====================================================== 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.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 274 and 275 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 two cases out of which one case is under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 139.680 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner and Raushan Kumar.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51725 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/3 that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that it does not appear probable that the Chawkidar would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 180 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51725 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner has antecedent of only two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T