Patna High Court
Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 30 litres of liquor from two motorcycles. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was implicated merely because he owned one of the motorcycles. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court considered the submissions and directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The order also stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail denial
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a requisite condition for confirming anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- vehicle ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13911 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2024 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar S/o Baban Yadav Resident of Village- Baratanr (Baratand),
P.S.- Bankeybazar, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Murari Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umeshanand Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from two different 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 he is owner of one of the
seized motorcycles. It is next submitted that no prudent person
would use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13911 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
would create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that Upendra Yadav would misuse the vehicle in the
manner as alleged as he was also apprehended at the spot along
with Binod Yadav.
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.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
Amas P. S. Case No.148 of 2024, 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
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13911 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…