Patna High Court
Om Prakash RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle from which the illegal liquor, firearm and cartridges were recovered implicated him in the offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Ray, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 414 IPC, Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 30(A) of the Excise Act, alleging recovery of 9 litres of liquor, a 7 mm pistol and two live cartridges from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, and that nothing was found in his conscious possession, contending that ownership of the vehicle should not make him liable. The State opposed the bail, stating that the pistol and cartridges were recovered from the motorcycle and that the investigation linked the vehicle to the petitioner, indicating his involvement. The Court examined whether mere ownership of the seized vehicle suffices to deny anticipatory bail and considered the seriousness of the offences under the Arms and Excise statutes. Concluding that the allegations were serious and the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle implicated him, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the alleged offences under IPC, Arms Act and Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which prohibited items were recovered is sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Excise Act — s. 30(A)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 414
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- Excise Act
- ownership of vehicle
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10045 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2023 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Om Prakash Ray S/O Ramashish Ray @ Ramshish Ray Resident of Village-
Ward No. 03, Naranga Uttari, P.S- Paunura, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ayush Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Sonbarsa P. S. Case No.244 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 414 of the I.P.C., Sections
25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 30(A) of the
Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 09 litres of liquor along with one 7mm pistol
along with two live cartridges from a motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10045 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create
evidence against himself and hence, would get implicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that specific allegation is alleged that a
country-made pistol along with two live cartridges were also
recovered from the motorcycle and the person had fled. It is also
submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired
that the motorcycles belongs to the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.