Patna High Court

RUPAN MURMU@ RUPAN MUMURversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Rupan Murmu, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing six litres of liquor and Rs.4,000 recovered from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was only linked to the offence because he owned the vehicle, which his wife allegedly misused. The petitioner, who has a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, while the State opposed the relief. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, the provisional order would be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether ownership of the vehicle, without actual possession of the contraband, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent influences the grant of anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
ownership of vehicle
clean antecedent
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.135 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 RUPAN MURMU@ RUPAN MUMUR Son of Pairu Murmu Resident of
                 village - Gayghat, P.S.- Kawakol, District - Nawada

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-01-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 6 litres of liquor along with Rs. 4,000/- from a

                   motorcycle.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   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 he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.135 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that his wife, Jhumri Hembram, would misuse the vehicle in the

          manner as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot.

                   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, 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.

          500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Kawakol

          P.S. Case No. 394 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 even 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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.135 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                        confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a

                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…