Patna High Court
Anil Nut @ Anil kumar NatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Nut, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 90 litres of liquor. He argued that he was not apprehended at the spot, that the liquor was recovered from his mother, and that the case was mechanically filed based on a chowkidar's information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the provisional bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedents affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether provisional anticipatory bail can be conditioned upon verification of antecedent by the trial court.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18244 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-871 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Anil Nut @ Anil kumar Nat S/O Chhathi Lal Nat R/O Vill.- Mithepur, P.s.-
Garkha, Dist.- Saran, Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raushan Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 90 liters of liquor from possession of
Muniya Devi.
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 even alleged
is from the mother of the petitioner and he came to be
implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18244 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
inimical term. It is also submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts
implicating mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar,
local person, confessional statement or secret information
without holding a proper investigation.
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.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Garkha
P.S. Case No. 871 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 more
than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18244 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…