Patna High Court
Raghunath MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to surrender, bond, sureties and verification of antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the antecedent check.
Summary
The petitioner, Raghunath Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 12 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that the seizure was based on secret information, that the vehicle was not his, and that no liquor was found in his possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offences were cognizable. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks and furnish a bail bond with two sureties. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents; if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed immediately. The judgment thus balances the petitioner’s right to liberty with the State’s interest in ensuring proper investigation.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 482(2) of the BNSS in granting anticipatory bail for offences under the Bihar Excise Act?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and reliance on secret information preclude arrest and justify anticipatory bail?
- How should the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(d)
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30
- secret information
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13201 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Raghunath Mukhiya S/O Jatuhu Mukhiya @ Jatathu Mukhiya R/V - Shivhar
ward no.- 11, P.S- Dumra, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP
======================================================
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 Sections 30(a) and
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 12 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on secret
information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without
holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13201 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/2
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. 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 Dumra P.S. Case No.
169 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.