Patna High Court
SUNILversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
Sunil, the owner of a vehicle, was implicated in the recovery of 352.5 litres of liquor from his car under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. He asserted that he had a clean criminal record and that the liquor was seized from the vehicle without his knowledge, as it was being used by others. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties of the same amount, subject to verification of his antecedents by the trial court. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith. The order was issued under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used for the alleged offence implicates the petitioner without proof of possession
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- surety
- vehicle ownership
- possession
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16430 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2026 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar
======================================================
SUNIL S/O Surendra R/O Vill.- Ukhal Chana (264), P.S.- Jhajjar, Dist.-
Jhajjar, Haryana
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijeet Gautam
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 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
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 352.5 litres of liquor from a car. It is next submitted
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 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 would get implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16430 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
It is also submitted that the petitioner was completely unaware
that Himanshu would misuse his vehicle in the manner as
alleged who was also apprehended from the spot along with
Neeraj.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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 Buxar (M) P.S. Case No.22/2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16430 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…