Patna High Court

Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to a bond and sureties, with confirmation contingent upon verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 54 litres of liquor from a car and 7.5 litres from a motorcycle. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that his friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The court directed that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s lack of direct possession and clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
Criminal Procedure Code
clean antecedent
liquor seizure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16574 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2025 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Pintu Kumar S/O Shivshankar Ray Resident of Village - Bariyarpur, P.S-
                 Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Birendra Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-04-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 54 litres of liquor from a Maruti Suzuki Wagon R

                   car and 7.5 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   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

                   motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16574 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
                                            2/3




          use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus

          would create evidence against himself and hence would get

          implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely

          unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner

          as alleged, who fled from the spot.

                   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 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 Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 301 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 even 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 is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16574 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…