Sanjay Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Manglam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 22-04-2026

¶12

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

¶13

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 3.5 litres of liquor from Umanath Bind Toli.

¶15

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 even the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26538 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/3

¶17

at the instance of local people, but then the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner, is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information. It is further submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts implicating mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation.

¶18

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

¶19

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. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Barh P.S. Case No. 270 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶20

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26538 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 3/3

¶22

event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than three cases 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 has antecedent of three cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶23

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶24

Sumit/-

¶25

U T

Sanjay Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kiran Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Badal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramu Chaudhary Vs The State of bihar