Patna High Court
Mohd. Mumtaz @ Mohd. Mumtaz Alam @ Mintu MiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the stipulated bond and surety conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Mohd. Mumtaz sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 274, 275 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 30(a) for alleged recovery of 1,840 litres of liquor from a pick‑up vehicle. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the police had mechanically implicated him without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than two prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; if exactly two, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the present excise case.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- police investigation
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1231 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1004 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Mohd. Mumtaz @ Mohd. Mumtaz Alam @ Mintu Miya S/o Idrish Khan @
Idrids @ Idrids R/o village - Bhel, P.S - Bidupur, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Sections 274, 275 BNS
& Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 1840 litres of liquor from a pick-up
vehicle. It is next submitted that 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 Liquor Prohibition Unit, Bihar.
It is also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case
relating to excise, the police starts implicating mechanically
without holding a proper investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1231 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. 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 Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten 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 Mahua P.S. Case
No.1004/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two cases, in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…