IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36028 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2026 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== Mithilesh Bind @ Mithilesh Kumar S/O Sri Ramagah Bin @ Ramugrah Bind R/O Village - Bhabhauli, P.S- Manjhi, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 176 of 2026, F.I.R dated 30.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. Recovery is of 90 liters of illicit country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person namely, Rajkumar Bind. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 2/4 He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure list that altogether 90 litres of country made liquor was recovered from the scooty and motorcycle in question and co-accused person, Rajkumar Bind has disclosed that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question. Apart from that nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. It appears from the seizure list that seizure list witnesses are police personnel, so there is non-compliance of Section 103/105 of the BNSS. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. 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 pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matters. 6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 3/4 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 counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, petitioner is made accused merely on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person and here is non-compliance of Section 103/105 of the BNSS, 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 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 176 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-i. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 4/4 on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. 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.

iii. 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. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36028 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2026 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== Mithilesh Bind @ Mithilesh Kumar S/O Sri Ramagah Bin @ Ramugrah Bind R/O Village - Bhabhauli, P.S- Manjhi, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 176 of 2026, F.I.R dated 30.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. Recovery is of 90 liters of illicit country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person namely, Rajkumar Bind. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 2/4 He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure list that altogether 90 litres of country made liquor was recovered from the scooty and motorcycle in question and co-accused person, Rajkumar Bind has disclosed that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question. Apart from that nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. It appears from the seizure list that seizure list witnesses are police personnel, so there is non-compliance of Section 103/105 of the BNSS. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. 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 pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matters. 6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 3/4 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 counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, petitioner is made accused merely on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person and here is non-compliance of Section 103/105 of the BNSS, 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 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 176 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-i. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36028 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 4/4 on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. 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.

iii. 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. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T