CR. MISC./3557/2026 of Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3557 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2022 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o Trilok Prasad Singh @ Triloki Singh R/o Village - Shahjadpur, Ward No. 4, Post - Shahjadpur, P.S - Udakishunganj, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 30-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30(a), 41 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that inadvertently while describing the petitioner, his district has been recorded as Madhubani when it ought to have been Madhepura. It is further submitted that even in the affidavit portion, the district of the father of the petitioner has been recorded as Madhubani instead of Madhepura, thus, seeks permission to make necessary correction in the description of the petitioner and his father. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3557 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 2/3 4. Permission is accorded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 154.710 litres of liquor from a car. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of Aditya Anand in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Dagarua P.S. Case No. 183 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3557 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 3/3 down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS. 9. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- with the Lawyers’ Association of the Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from today. Kundan/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T