Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34679 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2026 Thana- Excise Jhanjharpur District- Madhubani

======================================================

Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh Mahto Son of Lalo Mahto Resident of - Daia Khaorwar, Ward no. 01, P.S.- Lakhnaur, DistrictMadhubani, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(1) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶12

The case of the prosecution in brief is that there is an allegation of recovery of 108 liters of nepali liquor from the vehicle in question.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 2/4

¶15

allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the vehicle and altogether 108 liters of nepali liquor was recovered from the vehicle in question. It is next submitted that petitioner has been made an accused in the present case merely on the ground that petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question. It is next submitted that petitioner was not apprehended at the place of occurrence and he has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of liquor.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the prearrest bail would not be maintainable.

¶17

This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 3/4

¶19

counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (Excise Act) Court Jhanjharpur in connection with Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

¶21

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶22

If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34679 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 4/4

¶24

And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶26

Gaurav Sinha/-

¶27

U T

Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Mahto @ bhula @ Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bharosh Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Raushan Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Digambar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Kamlesh Sahani @ Kamelsh Ram @ Kamelsh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Diwana Kumar @ Madhusudan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar