Munna Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 13-05-2026

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of eight cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 960 litres of spirit from a vehicle.

¶14

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 is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Vinay and Bhawani in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32746 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/3

¶16

that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. 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. It is also submitted that petitioner earlier also in similar manner came to be implicated in cases relating to Excise.

¶17

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

¶18

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. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty 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 Parsa P.S. Case No. 97 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶19

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

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32746 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 3/3

¶21

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

¶22

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶23

Sumit/-

¶24

U T

Munna Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna 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

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Gupta @ Jitendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Shivam Kumar @ Shubhankar Yadav @ Shiv Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raushan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar