Patna High Court
Sambhu Kumar MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sambhu Kumar Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 8 litres of liquor on a motorcycle. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, did not have the seized vehicle in his possession, and that the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs. 500 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if none is found, the provisional bail will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement and the nature of the offences warrant denial of bail
- Whether the omission of the informant’s name in the FIR affects the merits of the bail application
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 274
- Section 275
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- trial court verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11959 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sambhu Kumar Mukhiya S/O Tuntun @ Tuntun Mukhiya R/O Vill.-
Matras,P.S- Madhepur,Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jaishankar Kumar Yadav
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 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 274 and 275 of BNS and
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 8 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated at the instance of local
people, but then the name of the person, who disclosed the name of
the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11959 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
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 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 Madhepur P.S.
Case No. 212 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 even 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 confirmed,
but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with
clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…