Ravi Shankar Kumar @ Ajay Kumar @ Ravi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81579 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2025 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Ravi Shankar Kumar @ Ajay Kumar @ Ravi Son of Subodh Singh Resident of Village - Udmarekha P.S. - Muffasil, District - Katihar(b. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 559.200 litres of liquor from two motorcycle and a pick-up vehicle along with country-made pistol and one live cartridge.

4. The 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 also submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81579 of 2025(2) dt.18-12-2025 2/2 that petitioner came to be implicated merely because he is owner of one of the seized motorcycle.

5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that apart from liquor being recovered from the vehicle as detailed in the FIR, allegation is of recovery of country-made pistol along with live cartridge and petitioner is the owner of one of the seized motorcycle and investigation of the case is in its nascent stages.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T