Binod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79093 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Binod Mahto Son of Late Mahaveer Mahto R/o Village - Jayantinagar, Dath, Ward No. 6, P.S. - Bahera, District - Madhubani. 2.

Ranjan Mahto Son of Late Sikendra Mahto R/o Village - Jayantinagar, Dath, Ward No. 6, P.S. - Bahera, District - Madhubani. 3.

Sonu Mahto Son of Late Sikendra Mahto R/o Village - Jayantinagar, Dath, Ward No. 6, P.S. - Bahera, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 504 litres of liquor from orchard of Dinesh. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79093 of 2025(2) dt.08-12-2025 2/3 recovery is from a place which does not belongs to the petitioner and is accessible to villagers at large and they came to be implicated by the Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if the Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioners 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 petitioners.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their 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. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each 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 Bahera P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 7.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79093 of 2025(2) dt.08-12-2025 3/3 case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is found that petitioners are person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T