Pannalal Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1877 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-566 Year-2022 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Pannalal Mukhiya Son of Chen Mukhiya Resident of Village- Harkaina, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of liquor from three different places out of which 3 litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and after 2018

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1877 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 2/3 amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is submitted that if the Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 566 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1877 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 3/3 down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

7.

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 even one case 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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. 8.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,500/- with Advocate Association, Patna High Court.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T