IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51108 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-647 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Jagadish Mahto Son of Late Ram kishun Mahto Resident of Village- Telwa, Ward no. 12, P.S.- Suapul, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhuweneswar Sahu, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 29-07-2026 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 Supaul P.S. Case No. 647 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. 3. Acting on a tip-off regarding storage and sale of illicit wine, the police conducted raid. However, noticing the police, one person succeeded in fleeing away, who was later on identified as the petitioner. In course of search of the house of the petitioner, 10 liters country-made chulai liquor was recovered. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses to the search and seizure are none else but the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51108 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/3 police personnels. Moreover, at the time of search and seizure, no video recording was conducted, and as such, there is complete defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that had the recovery been made from the house of the petitioner, there would have been signature of any of the family members. But absence of that clearly shows mala fide on the part of the prosecution. There is complete denial of any recovery from the house of the petitioner and the petitioner is carrying fair and antecedent as also he undertakes that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the alleged recovery from the house of the petitioner clearly bars the anticipatory bail in terms of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that there is no compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, besides the petitioner is carrying fair antecedent, and the lack of materials which attracts the rigor to maintain the anticipatory bail, let the petitioner above named be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51108 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 3/3 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 Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1, Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 647 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