Patna High Court
Surendra MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail after fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged recovery of six litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, that the alleged liquor was not found in his possession, and that the alleged recovery occurred on land not owned by him, making the accusation baseless. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence is non-bailable and that the petitioner could flee. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with a proviso that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed. The trial court was directed to confirm the bail if the petitioner is found to have no criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession of the alleged liquor justify provisional anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13583 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Surendra Mukhiya Son of Kanchan Mukhiya Resident of Village- Shayampur,
P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 6 litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard. It is next
submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even
alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioner and is accessible to villagers at large and he came to be
implicated based on secret information which is the easiest way to
implicate someone without holding a proper investigation, when
petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13583 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
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 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 Nautan P.S.
Case No.508/2025, 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 even one case,
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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…