Patna High Court

Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of large quantities of liquor from motorcycles, though he claimed he was not in possession and was unaware of the misuse of his vehicle. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership of the vehicle should not make him culpable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, requiring a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties, and conditioned the order on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order is subject to the powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail denial.
Whether the court can condition anticipatory bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
criminal antecedent
Section 30
Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10685 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Sonu Kumar S/O Shankar Yadav @ Shankar Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.-
                 Fathepur, P.S.- Akbarpur, Dist.- Nawada

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-04-2026                  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 Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 282 liters of liquor from two

                   motorcycles and 540 liters of liquor from five motorcycles.

                                4. Learned     counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended 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 one of the

                   seized vehicles. It is next submitted that no prudent person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10685 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                            2/3




          would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and

          thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get

          implicated, it is also submitted that petitioner was completely

          unaware that Ranjan would misuse the vehicle in the manner as

          alleged who was also apprehended from the spot.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, 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.

          5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Rajauli

          P.S. Case No. 470 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one

          case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10685 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has

                      antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional

                      anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…