Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Amit Kumar applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 12.99 litres of liquor from two motorcycles. He contended that he was not in actual possession, the vehicles were his, and he was unaware of their misuse by another person. The State opposed the bail. The court, after hearing counsel, granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., and directed verification of his criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would be withdrawn, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a person alleged to have committed an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Excise Act
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13145 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhubani
======================================================
Amit Kumar Son of Jit Lal Yadav Resident of Village - Belhi, Ward No.06,
P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 12.99 litres of liquor from two
motorcycles.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
implicated based on the fact that petitioner is owner of one of
the seized motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13145 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
person would use his own vehicle for committing a crime and
thus, would create evidence against himself and hence, would
get implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that Bharat Yadav would misuse the vehicle
in the manner as alleged as he was also apprehended at the spot.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- (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 Madhubani Sadar Excise P. S. Case No.493 of 2025, G.O.
No.1936 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13145 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, 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)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…