Patna High Court

Manoj PandeyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

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

Summary

Manoj Pandey, owner of a vehicle from which 1249.56 litres of liquor was seized, sought anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. He argued he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was unaware that Dinkar had misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner's criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged involvement in an excise offence.
Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to implicate the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner's clean antecedent warrants provisional anticipatory bail pending verification.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 482(2)
excise offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18260 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Pandey Son of Jagdish Pandey Resident of Village- Sadopur ki Jhal,
                 Dadri, P.S.- Sadopur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Md Shadab Alam Wazdi, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ramesh Chandra, 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 1249.56 liters of liquor from a truck.

                                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.18260 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated

          and at the same time shall bring disrepute to his business, it is

          further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that

          Dinkar would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who

          was also apprehended from the spot along with Sunil.

                       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 Rani

          Talab P.S. Case No. 267 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18260 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 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…