Praduman Mahto @ Praduman Bind @ Praduman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89553 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== Praduman Mahto @ Praduman Bind @ Praduman Kumar S/O Jageshwar Mahto @ Jugeshwar @ Tengar Mahto Resident of Ward No 28 Sonarpatti, Sahebganj, purvi Dahiyawan, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Saran, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Town PS Case No. 490 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that total 100 litres of liquor was recovered from Rickshaw and Thela. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents. There is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89553 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026 2/2 compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner.

5.

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner bears four criminal antecedent/s, that too of the similar nature, hence, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and specifically taking into account the fact that petitioner bears four criminal antecedent/s, that too of the similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T