IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23634 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-799 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Kamlesh Chaudhary S/O Kewal Chaudhary Resident of village- Makhdumpur Dih Chaudhary Tola, P.S.- Makhadumpur, Dist.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 03-06-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 799 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 3. Acting on a tip off regarding sale and storage of illicit wine, the police conducted raid in the house of the petitioner and recovered 15 liters of country made liquor under the stair of his house. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire case falls to the ground for the simple reason that the witnesses are none else but the police personnels. Had the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23634 of 2026(3) dt.03-06-2026 2/3 recovery been made from the house of the petitioner, there would have been signature of the family members of the petitioner, but surprisingly, the witnesses are none else but the police personnels. Taking this Court through the FIR, it is further contended that the mala fide of the police personnels is also evident that they disclosed that all the recovery of illicit wine, even from the different accused persons, have been made under the stair of their respective houses. The false implication of the petitioner is said to be because of his past criminal antecedent of identical nature. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that recovery is made from the house of the petitioner and his criminal antecedent in six identical matters as also the express bar to maintain anticipatory bail under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act clearly disentitle the petitioner for anticipatory bail. 6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that despite the alleged recovery having been made from the house of the petitioner, there is no signature of any of the family members much less any independent witness, besides the similar recovery Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23634 of 2026(3) dt.03-06-2026 3/3 from the different accused persons, that too, under the staircase and thus lacking cogent ingredients attracting the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act; moreover, mere criminal antecedent of a person cannot be the sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail in absence of other relevant materials, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 799 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. shivank/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T