IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35618 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- Shahartelpa P.S. District- Arwal ====================================================== Pawan Kumar S/O Laldev Yadav @ Laldev Singh, Resident of Village- Chainpur, P.S.- Sahar Telpa, District- Arwal. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 02-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahar Telpa P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. Acting on a tip-off regarding storage and sell of wine by the petitioner, when the police reached in the village, two persons on noticing them tried to flee but were subsequently apprehended. From their possession 2.5 liters of liquor were recovered. In the meantime, another person succeeded in fleeing away from a nearby hut, and was allegedly identified as the petitioner. Upon search of the said hut, 15 litres of country- made liquor were recovered. The apprehended persons, during Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35618 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026 2/3 interrogation, disclosed that they used to purchase liquor from the petitioner. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, besides the fact the very identification of the petitioner is doubtful, the hut from where the recovery was made does not belong to the petitioner. Save and except the disclosure made by the apprehended persons, which is not legally admissible, there is no other material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in crime. Since there is no recovery from the conscious and constructive possession of the petitioner, therefore, the rigors provided under section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’) is also not attracted, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceedings of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that recovery of wine from the hutment of the petitioner clearly shows his complicity in the crime; besides there is express bar to maintain the anticipatory bail in such matters. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35618 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026 3/3 the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the hut from where the alleged recovery has been made doesn't belong to the petitioner, coupled with the serious deficiency in the search and seizure as also the defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and no cogent material attracting the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Act, 2016 and the fair antecedent of the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise-II, Jehanabad in connection with Sahar Telpa P.S. Case No.01 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. rohit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T