Patna High Court
Ramesh SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with the bail to be confirmed only if he is found to have a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Sahani, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 165 litres of liquor from a hut he does not own. He contended he has a clean criminal record and that the complaint was motivated by personal enmity with the complainant chaukidar. The State opposed the bail. 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 antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from a hut not owned by the petitioner negates the grounds for denial of bail.
- Whether the existence of any prior criminal antecedent would affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances 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
- false allegation
- Cr.P.C. 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16244 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-543 Year-2025 Thana- SAGAULI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ramesh Sahani S/O Late Birbal Sahani R/O Vill.- Mehwa, P.S- Sugauli,
Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore Alias Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 the
order impugned records that petitioner has antecedent of two
cases when petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, as such,
in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out
by the office, are hereby ignored.
4. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of
165 litres of liquor from the hut of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16244 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from the hut which does not belong to the petitioner.
It is further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at
the instance of the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical
term. It is next submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did
not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
also submitted that enmity of the petitioner with the Chawkidar
gets fortified by the fact that he got the petitioner implicated in
the instant case based on a wrong allegation that the hut belongs
to the petitioner and the police in a mechanical manner
implicated the petitioner without holding a proper investigation
of the case. It is submitted that at para 7 of the anticipatory bail
application, it has been specifically pleaded that petitioner is not
the owner of the hut.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16244 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
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 Sugauli P.S. Case No. 543 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. However, 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 person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…