Patna High Court
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Rajan Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged recovery of 19,500 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was not the vehicle's owner, alleging that the case was based on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify 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 was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS in the pending case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- criminal antecedent
- bond and surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1188 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Sheohar
======================================================
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan Patel S/o Vijay Patel @ Vijay Raut R/o Village -
Kamrauli, Ward No. 14, P.S - Piprahi, District - Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 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 30(a) and 32(3) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of
19.500 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. 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 secret information which is the easiest way
to implicate someone without holding a proper investigation of the
case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1188 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. 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.5,000/- (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 Sheohar Excise P.S. Case No. 228 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of more than 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 has antecedent of only one case
in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…