Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with confirmation contingent on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 40 litres of Jawa Mahua and 100 litres of raw Jawa. He argued that no contraband was seized from his possession, the alleged recovery occurred on public land, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Rupesh while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a Rs.5,000 bail bond with two sureties and subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the provisional bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed. The order thus balances the petitioner’s right to liberty with the State’s interest in enforcing the excise law.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused in police custody can alone justify arrest and denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of one case affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(d)
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- excise offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12290 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Pawan Yadav @ Shree Lal Yadav Village-Rampur Alauli,
Ward No. 01, P.S.- Alauli, District-Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
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, Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(d) 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 40 liters of Jawa Mahua along with
100 liters of raw Jawa from a place near a maize field.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to public at large he came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of Rupesh in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12290 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, 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 Morkahi P.S. Case No.
78 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
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
Checking your session…