Komal Mauraya @ Vishal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90970 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== 1.

Komal Mauraya @ Vishal Son of Sabhajeet @ Sambhajeet Maurya Resident of Village - Nawpadwa(Churawanpur), P.S. - Baksha, Dist. - Jaunpur(U.P.). 2.

Vijay Maurya @ Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Maurya Son of Sitaram @ Sitaram Maurya @ Seetaram Resident of Village - Nawpadwa(Churawanpur), P.S. - Baksha, Dist. - Jaunpur(U.P.). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No.134/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(A) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of six cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of five cases and allegation is of recovery of 1111.60 litres of liquor from a pick up vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90970 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 2/2 are not the owners of any of the seized vehicle and they came to be implicated based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that no doubt petitioners were not arrested from the spot and their name transpired on the confessional statement but then petitioners are resident of U.P. and they are involved in several cases including NDPS and in the event if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners may abscond.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T