Saddam @ Sadam Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86648 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- KUNDWACHAINPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Saddam @ Sadam Alam Son of Md. Islam @ Islam @ Mir Islam Resident of Village- Bakhari Khajuri, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ujjwal Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that total 378 litres of liquor was recovered from two motorcycles.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86648 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/2 possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in no manner connected with the vehicle in question or the alleged recovery of liquor. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has eight criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has eight criminal antecedents, hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T