IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40452 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2026 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sudhir Sahni @ Sudhir Kumar S/O Bauelal Sahni Resident of Village- Badi Vistha, P.S.- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 01-07-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act. 3. Acting on a tip off regarding manufacturing of illicit wine, the police conducted raid in the house of co-accused Bauelal Sahni. However, noticing the police party one person succeeded in fleeing away. On interrogation, co-accused Bauelal Sahni disclosed the name of such person as the petitioner. In course of search, total 44 liters of country made chulai liquor was recovered besides some utensils. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40452 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 2/3 the alleged recovery of illicit wine has been made from a common passage of a joint family house, where other family members were residing. Besides the fact that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner had been working as a labour in Tamil Nadu, on account of some extraneous reason, the name of the petitioner, being son of co-accused Bauelal Sahni, has been implicated in this case. The petitioner has nothing to do with the recovered illicit wine nor with the business of his father and he bears fair antecedent. There are various other discrepancies in the search and seizure and the witnesses to the search and seizure are none else but the police personnel. Had the recovery been made from the house of the petitioner, there would have been signature of any of the family members, but the same has not been done, which also smacks mala fide on the part of the police. The materials aforenoted and also collected during the course of investigation are not sufficient enough to attract the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the recovery of the illicit wine from the house of the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40452 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 3/3 speaks about his involvement. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from a common passage of a joint family house, besides the discrepancies in the search and seizure, as also the fair antecedent of the petitioner and lacking cogent materials attracting the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 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 Judge Excixe-II, Muzaffarpur in connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026, 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