Patna High Court

Guddu RamversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedents, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

Guddu Ram, a resident of Saran district, feared arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 85 litres of liquor and destruction of 400 litres of mahua from a public riverbank. He argued that he had no possession of the contraband, the site was public, and the complainant (the chowkidar) did not inform police earlier, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the petitioner's clean antecedent and the lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a six‑week window for surrender, pending verification of his criminal record under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise it would be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the lack of possession and public nature of the alleged site justify granting anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
clean antecedent
Section 482
high court
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.137 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2025 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Guddu Ram Son of Chhotelal Ram Resident of Village- Nandlal Tola, Pthauri,
                 P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Harsh Anuj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
                 ======================================================
                 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 85 litres of liquor from a bush near bank of river

                   and 400 litres of mahua was destroyed.

                             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 even the alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

                   and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.137 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is submitted that if the

          Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in

          the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to

          institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the

          case of the prosecution.

                   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 Baniapur

          P.S. Case No. 195 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.137 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…