Patna High Court
Babloo KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
Babloo Kumar, the petitioner, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging that 40 litres of liquor were recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was implicated merely because he owned the vehicle, which his friend allegedly misused. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order also stipulated that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, and if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed. If the petitioner is found to have a clean antecedent, the provisional bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to justify arrest without possession of the contraband.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- surety
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1712 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-487 Year-2024 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Babloo Kumar S/O Dukhan Chaudhary R/O Village- Bara, P.S- Fatehpur,
Distt.- Gayaji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, 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 Section 30(a) 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 40 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 create evidence against
himself and hence would get implicated, it is also submitted that
petitioner was completely unaware that his friend would misuse the
vehicle in the manner as alleged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1712 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. 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 Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 487 of 2024 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 person with
clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…