Patna High Court
Muktinath GiriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his antecedents.
Summary
Muktinath Giri, the owner of a Tata Magic vehicle, was implicated in a case alleging the recovery of 145.755 litres of liquor from his vehicle under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was not arrested at the spot and did not have the liquor in his conscious possession; the allegation rests solely on his ownership of the vehicle. Giri asserted that he had a clean antecedent and was unaware that a person named Manjit would misuse his vehicle. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail for six weeks, subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties of the same amount, and directed the trial court to verify his antecedents before confirming the bail. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in light of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10299 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2021 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Muktinath Giri Son of Kripanath Giri Resident of Village- Math Baulia, P.S.-
Bankata, District- Deoria (U.P.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Shahi
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 145.755 litres of liquor from a Tata Magic vehicle.
It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot
as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession
and he came to be 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 an occurrence and
thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10299 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
implicated and at the same time shall bring disrepute to his
business. It is also submitted that the petitioner was completely
unaware that Manjit would misuse his vehicle in the manner as
alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender 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 Mairwa P.S. Case No.104/2021, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10299 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…