Patna High Court
Surya Kumar Sharma @ Surya Pratik @ Saurya PratikversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
Surya Kumar Sharma applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code after a police case (PS Case No. 346 of 2025) alleged his involvement in the illegal possession of 557.73 litres of liquor, seized from a house and a Suzuki car he owned. The petitioner argued that the liquor was recovered from a location not belonging to him, that he was unaware of his driver’s alleged misuse of the vehicle, and that a police‑custody confession by a third party had no evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal record, including an earlier case under the Excise Act. The Court considered the lack of direct possession, the petitioner’s claim of ignorance, and the need to verify his antecedents before confirming bail. It granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order further directed that if the petitioner is found to have more than two prior cases, the bail would be revoked, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the seized vehicle and alleged lack of direct possession of liquor justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- illegal liquor possession
- vehicle seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18086 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Surya Kumar Sharma @ Surya Pratik @ Saurya Pratik Son of Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma Resident of village- Kanti Kasva PS- Kanti District -Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr/s.Preety Kunwar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 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 has antecedent of two cases out of which one case
is under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 557.730
litres of liquor from house of Rakesh Das and from a Suzuki 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 even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18086 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Rakesh 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 against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is
further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
his driver would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged and
even Seema wife of Rakesh disclosed the name of the petitioner,
but then, confession in police custody does not have any
evidentiary value. It is next submitted that petitioner has
antecedent under the Excise Act, as such, the police got him
implicated through Seema since his car was apprehended from
the place of occurrence.
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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18086 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection
with Motihari Mufassil P. S. Case No.346 of 2025, 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 more than two cases,
then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining 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 has antecedent of two cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…