IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57296 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2026 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Manjit Rai son of Uday Rai Resident of Village - Maujipur, Ps- Fatuha, Dist- Patna. 2. Toni Kumar Son of Kishori Sao Resident of Village - Maujipur, Ps- Fatuha, Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saumya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 403 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that 2,089.02 litres of foreign liquor were recovered from a truck. The police apprehended the driver of the said truck, who disclosed that the illicit liquor was to be delivered to the persons named in the FIR, and the petitioners are two out of three persons named by the driver. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in no way connected with either the truck or the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57296 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 2/3 seized illicit liquor. The accusation against the petitioners is based solely on the alleged disclosure made by the driver before the police that they were the persons to whom the liquor was to be delivered, except that there is nothing against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no recovery, either physical or conscious, from the possession of the petitioners, nor is there any material connecting them with the seized illicit liquor. 5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Keeping in view the fact that there is no recovery, either physical or conscious, from the petitioners and that they are in no way connected with the truck or the seized liquor, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, and considering the manner in which they have been made accused, let both above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, are directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Court of Excise, Patna City/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57296 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 3/3 No. 403 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further conditions that:- “(i) One of the bailors shall be family member of the petitioners. (ii) Petitioners shall cooperate in further investigation if any, in case of non- compliance of aforesaid conditions, the informant/State shall be at liberty to press for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners before the learned trial court itself, which be decided, after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (iii) That the petitioners shall not involve in similar nature of offence till the conclusion of trial, failing which, the State shall be at liberty to move before the learned Trial Court itself for the cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.” veena/- (Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) U T