Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar HembramversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 60 litres of liquor from a bicycle. He was not caught in possession and is not the owner of the bicycle; his implication rests on a confessional statement made by another accused in police custody, which the petitioner argues lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The court further directed that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately. The order is made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of another accused can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- Section 30
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1654 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Munger
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Hembram Son of Raghuveer Hembram
Resident of Village - Ummi Banversha, Police Station - Bariyarpur, District -
Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of
60 liters of liquor from a bicycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized bicycle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1654 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/2
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, 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. 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 Excise P.S. Case No. 214 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 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 in the event
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then
it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking
anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed,
but after verification if 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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…