IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56243 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1. Chutun Yadav son of Prem Yadav @ Pram yadav Resident of village- Kotwa Dephu/ Dipau PS -Kotwa Dist- East Champaran 2. Sunil Mahto son of Raju Mahto Resident of Village - Husaini, Ps- Dumariya Ghat, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepankar Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 2 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 426 of 2026 instituted for the offences under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that 67.200 liters liquor was recovered from auto and the petitioners were arrested on spot. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56243 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 2/3 have got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the driver and the petitioner no. 2 is the co-driver of the vehicle in question and they had no knowledge regarding the nature of goods kept in vehicle. The petitioners are in custody since 20.05.2026 and the petitioner no. 1 has got one criminal antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has got none. There is no compliance of Section 103 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner no. 1 is the driver of the vehicle, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 1 after framing of charge. 7. Let the petitioner no. 1 be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 426 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:- (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56243 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 3/3 (II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. 8. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, since the petitioner is co-driver of the vehicle, this Court is inclined to grant bail to petitioner no. 2. 9. Let the petitioner no. 2 be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 426 of 2026. saurav/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T