Patna High Court
Shambhu KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Shambhu Kushwaha, feared arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 50 litres of spirit from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not caught in possession, was not the vehicle's owner, and the case rested on a confessional statement made by another accused, Sanjeet, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked 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 that the bail would not be confirmed if more than one prior case is found, but would be confirmed if only one antecedent exists.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Excise Act offences.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused in police custody can form the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1671 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- Raghunathpur District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shambhu Kushwaha S/O Late Asharfi Prasad @ Late Asharfi Kushwaha
Prasad Resident of Village- Shanichara Tola Godwa Ward No.-08, P.S-
Muffasil, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, 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 Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the excise act and
allegation is of recovery of 50 liters of spirit from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Sanjeet in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1671 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 Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 266 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…