Srikant Rai @ Umakant Rai @ Kallu Rai @ Srikant Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90869 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Srikant Rai @ Umakant Rai @ Kallu Rai @ Srikant Yadav Son of Sanjivan Rai R/o Sukumarpur, P.S. - Raghopur(Rustampur O.P.), P.O. - Jahangirpur, District - Vaishali, and presently R/O Locality - Baglodan Gali (Mangal Talab), P.S. - Chowk, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026

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 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of eight cases out of which five cases are under the excise act and allegation is of recovery of 330 liters of liquor from the house of Ramakant Ray and two motorcycles were seized.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90869 of 2025(2) dt.30-01-2026 2/2 owner of any of the seized vehicles and he came to be implicated based on the fact that he is brother of Ramakant and Jaikant. It is also 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 his knowledge, but since petitioner has criminal antecedent under the excise act, as such, he also came to be implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail application of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Raghopur (Rustampur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 62 of 2020.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T