Patna High Court
Nanhak RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Nanhak Ray, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly possessing 27 litres of liquor recovered from an e‑rickshaw he owned. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and that the vehicle was being used by his driver without his knowledge. The State opposed his application for anticipatory 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 criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be withdrawn; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted 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 ownership of the vehicle used for the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a requisite condition for confirming anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- ownership of vehicle
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16279 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2025 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Nanhak Ray S/O Ram Prasad Ray Resident of Village - Saraypur, Terahrasia,
Vaishali, Rathakar, Bihar, P.S. - Ganga Bridge, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyamal Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 27 litres of liquor from an E-rickshaw.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that he is
owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent
person would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16279 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that his driver would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged who he had given the vehicle for plying
on commercial basis.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender 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 Sultanganj P.S.
Case No. 374 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.
7. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16279 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
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…