Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Rahul Kumar applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 314.28 litres of liquor from a hut that he does not own. The petitioner argued that he was not in possession of the liquor and that the police, acting on a local informant, implicated him without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds and two sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would be revoked; if only one prior case, the bail would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1530 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Anil Sahni R/O Village - Nathudwar, Ward no.-08, P.S -
Khanpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 314.28 litres of liquor from a
hut.
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 even the hut does
not belong to the petitioner, but then, police at the instance of
local person implicated him alleging that the hut belonged to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1530 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
petitioner. It is next submitted that police in majority of cases
implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar,
local person, secret information and confessional statement in a
mechanical manner without holding a proper investigation.
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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Sadar Excise Samastipur P. S. Case No.299 of 2025,
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 more than one case, then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1530 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
it 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…