Patna High Court

Gultesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Gultesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of three litres of liquor from a location adjacent to his shop, not from his possession. He asserted a clean criminal record and argued that the investigation was inadequate. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, invoking Sections 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and 482(2) of the BNSS. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
Whether the alleged recovery of liquor, not in the petitioner’s possession, justifies arrest.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 30(a)
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
clean antecedent
Criminal Procedure Code
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1483 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- BITHAN District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Gultesh Kumar S/o Ram Lal Mukhiya R/o Village- Bithan, P.S- Bithan, Dist-
                 Samastipur.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-01-2026                   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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 3 litres of liquor from a place behind the shop of the

                   petitioner.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   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

                   but then is adjacent to his shop. It is further submitted that

                   petitioner came to be implicated based on the secret information
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1483 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                            2/3




          which is the easiest way to implicate someone without holding a

          proper investigation of the case, when petitioner admittedly is a

          person with clean antecedent.

                       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, let 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 Bithan

          P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid

          down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it

          would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent

          before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in

          that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1483 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                     anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…