Patna High Court
Parmeshwar Mandal @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedent, with confirmation contingent on the number of prior cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Parmeshwar Mandal, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 420 IPC and several provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 concerning the alleged recovery of 177.20 litres of liquor from a vehicle he did not own. He argued that the police had relied on a confessional statement of another accused in custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value, and that he had no conscious possession of the liquor. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.20,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks. If the petitioner is found to have more than four prior cases, the bail will not be confirmed; if only four, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic and Substance (B.N.S.S.) Act.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner?
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused can be the basis for arrest in the present case?
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent exceeding four cases would bar confirmation of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal antecedent
- excise law
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13055 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2022 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Parmeshwar Mandal @ Rahul Kumar S/o Binod Mandal R/o - Ramji Khani,
P.O and P.S - Dumka, District - Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kuldeep Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 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 Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30(a), 32(1)(ii) and 41(1)
(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of
recovery of 177.20 litres of liquor from a Scorpio.
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 based on the confessional statement of
apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13055 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that off
late the police in a mechanical manner implicate accused in
cases relating to excise who carry antecedent.
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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 Chautham P.S. Case No. 211 of 2022,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
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 more than four cases,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13055 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
petitioner has antecedent of only four cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…