Patna High Court
Shivam Kumar @ Golu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivam Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for alleged recovery of 1,049.640 litres of liquor from a truck. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, and had no conscious possession of the liquor, further contending that the FIR does not disclose the informant who implicated him. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. Justice Satyavrat Verma, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.1,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The decision rests on the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the context of alleged excise offences.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- excise offence
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12270 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Shivam Kumar @ Golu Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh R/o
vill - Chakiya, P.S.- Dehri Muffasil, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 1049.640 litres of liquor from a truck.
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 at the instance of the local person 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12270 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
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 within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One 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 Sasaram Excise
P.S. Case No. 560 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…