Patna High Court
Gajendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, granting provisional bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Gajendra Kumar applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. after a case was registered against him for alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Excise Act involving the recovery of 7.5 litres of liquor from his car. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not in actual possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was unaware that his vehicle was being misused. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court also ordered the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent and stipulated that the bail could be revoked if any prior case is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession of the liquor and clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- possession
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17052 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-656 Year-2018 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Gajendra Kumar S/o Manki Rai R/o Pahelaj Shahpur Diyara, P.s.- Sonpur,
Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 7.5 litres of liquor from a car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 car. It
is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own
vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create evidence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17052 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is further
submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that Sunny
would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged as he was
also apprehended at the spot along with Pappu.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Danapur P. S. Case No.656 of 2018, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17052 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…