IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57710 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2024 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar S/o Ranjan Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Sanjay Nagar Road No 2, P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 19-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Rabindra Kumar. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 129.6 liters of liquor from two motorcycles. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of any of the seized motorcycles, on which the learned APP, Mr. Rabindra Kumar, submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that petitioner is the owner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57710 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026 2/2 of one of the seized vehicles, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was the owner of the vehicle, but then had sold the vehicle in the year 2014 itself to one Amit Kumar. 5. On query of the Court that what was the mode of sale of the vehicle, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vehicle was not transferred in the name of Amit, on which the learned APP submits that if it is presumed that the vehicle was sold in absence of transfer of ownership, in that event Amit would be made an accused. It is also submitted that it might be a ploy of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T