Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91613 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- ARERAJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar S/O Dhanesh Chaudhary R/O Village- Sukul Tola ward no. 8, P.S.- Areraj, Dist.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 23.02.2026. It is next submitted that at Para-6 of the order dated 23.02.2026, it was recorded that petitioner has antecedent of two cases, but then petitioner has antecedent of four cases and the additional two cases were brought by way of supplementary affidavit, but inadvertently, at Para-6 it was recorded that petitioner has antecedent of two cases when he has antecedent of four cases.

3. The Court has perused the supplementary affidavit.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, Para-6 is modified to the extent that it shall be read- Learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91613 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026 2/2 counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the excise act and allegation is of recovery of 4.520 liters of liquor from a place adjacent to the house of the petitioner and accordingly, Para 10 is also modified to the extent that it shall be read- It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than four cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of four cases only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

5. The order dated 23.02.2026 is modified to the extent indicated above.

6. Rest of the order shall remain intact.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T