Patna High Court
Surendra RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted in the excise case, subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents, with the power to confirm or cancel the bail thereafter.
Summary
The petitioners – Surendra Ram, Amarjit Kumar and Sushila Devi – applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged recovery of 160 litres of liquor from a bush adjacent to their house. They contended that no liquor was found in their possession, the recovery was from land not belonging to them, and that the complaint was motivated by a hostile chowkidar. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties of the same amount, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if any petitioner’s antecedent exceeds the disclosed figures, the bail would not be confirmed for that individual; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The decision was made under the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged lack of possession and the circumstances of the FIR justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the High Court may impose conditions, including verification of criminal antecedents, before confirming anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- criminal antecedent
- excise offence
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18368 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-630 Year-2025 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Surendra Ram S/o Motichandra Ram @ Harilal Ram Resident of Village-
Kolhua, PS- Darounda, Distt.- Siwan
2. Amarjit Kumar @ Amarjit Kumar Ram S/o Surendra Ram Resident of
Village- Kolhua, PS- Darounda, Distt.- Siwan
3. Sushila Devi W/o Surendra Ram Resident of Village- Kolhua, PS-
Darounda, Distt.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent, petitioner no.2
has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and petitioner
no.3 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
petitioner no.3 is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 160
litres of liquor from bushes in front of the house of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18368 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
petitioners. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their
conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a place
which does not belong to the petitioners but then is adjacent to
their house as such they came to be implicated at the instance of
chowkidar with whom petitioners are on an inimical term. It is
next submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that
once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the
police starts implicating mechanically either through chowkidar,
local person, confessional statement or secret information
without holding a proper investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18368 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Darounda P.S. Case No.630/2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent
of even one case, petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than
two cases and petitioner no.3 has antecedent of more than one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioners had
concealed their antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with
respect to those petitioners whose criminal antecedent does not
tally but if after verification the criminal antecedent as recorded
hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…