Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Banty KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Banty Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving the seizure of 504 litres of liquor from a Bajaj Maxima vehicle, alleged to be an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He argued that his name was disclosed by a co‑accused, that he was neither the owner nor driver of the vehicle, and that he had no knowledge of the liquor. The petitioner also highlighted that there was no compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that the prosecution’s case was prima facie weak. The State opposed the bail, noting the petitioner’s nine prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature. The Court, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal history, declined to grant anticipatory bail, but allowed the petitioner to apply for regular bail if he surrenders within six weeks.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
  • Whether the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • bail
  • criminal antecedents
  • liquor seizure
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
  • Section 30(a)
  • Section 103

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16770 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2025 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Banty Kumar Son of Ramnandan Prasad R/o - Jagatnandanpr, P.S - Rahui,
                 District - Nalanda

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-03-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Rahui P.S. Case No. 495 of 2025 instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                               3. The prosecution case, in short, is that total 504 litres

                   of liquor was recovered from Bajaj Maxima vehicle.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

                   name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of

                   disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person. Learned

                   counsel further submitted that petitioner is neither the owner nor

                   the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner has got no knowledge
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16770 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     and concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned

                     counsel, therefore, submitted that prima-facie, no case is made

                     out against the petitioner. The petitioner has nine criminal

                     antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the

                     Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                     the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case as also there being large number of criminal

                     antecedents of similar nature, in my view, this is not a fit case

                     for anticipatory bail, and hence, I am not inclined to grant

                     anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                                  8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.