Patna High Court
Saroj PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Saroj Paswan, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 612 litres of liquor from a public place in front of his house. He argued he has a clean antecedent, the liquor was not in his possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Abhishek Anand while in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be revoked; if none is found, the provisional bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused recorded in police custody can form the sole basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- liquor seizure
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12263 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Saroj Paswan Son of Late Rajendra Paswan R/o Village - Tardiha, P.S. -
Madhepur, Dist. - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 612 litres of liquor from a place in front of the house of
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and
is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated based on
the confessional statement of Abhishek Anand in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12263 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
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, let 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.
241 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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…