Patna High Court

Munazir AlamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and verification of his criminal antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Munazir Alam, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 0.750 litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that another individual, Md. Amanat, would misuse his vehicle. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and ordered verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; if the petitioner is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the applicable provisions given the circumstances of the alleged offence.
Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, without actual possession of the liquor, suffices to justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 482
vehicle ownership
liquor seizure
criminal antecedent
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17113 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Munazir Alam S/o- Md. Khalil R/v- Noor Kani Tola Sadipur Bhatha P.S-
                 Baisi District- Purnea

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-03-2026                  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

                   32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 0.750 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.

                                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 he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use

                   his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17113 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Md. Amanat would misuse the vehicle in the manner as

          alleged who was also apprehended from the spot along with

          Raju.

                       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.

          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 Madya

          Nisedh P.S. Case No. 211 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17113 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                      confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…