Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86877/2025bail rejected

Bali Nut v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-16Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86877 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-746 Year-2023 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== Bali Nut Son of Daharu Nut @ Dinesh Nut R/O Village - Bajit Bhoraha, P.S.- Marhowrah, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 332, 333, 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 44274 of 2024. In the said Cr. Misc. No. 44274 of 2024, the petitioner at para 3 had pleaded that he has antecedent of one case, as such, the petitioner was granted the provisional anticipatory bail by an order dated 30.08.2024 with a condition that the learned trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has more than one antecedent in that event his provisional bail bonds shall be cancelled.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86877 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026 2/2

4. It is submitted that on verification, it was found that petitioner has antecedent of eight cases, as such, his provisional bail bonds were cancelled and petitioner was taken into custody on 11.11.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner initially had approached this Court with unclean hands and if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond as from the pleadings made in the regular bail application it does not manifest that charges have been framed against the petitioner.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail but then the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected in connection with Madhaurah P.S. Case No. 746 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra/Successor Court.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T