Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to a bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 7.200 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued he had a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the seizure was based on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if none is found, the provisional order will be confirmed. The order thus conditions bail on future verification of the petitioner’s record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case arising under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the facts of seizure and lack of possession justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the trial court’s verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent can be made a condition for confirming provisional anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- seizure of liquor
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18402 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- West Champaran
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Son of Bachchu Yadav Resident of village- Shyampur
Kotraha, Ward no- 01, P.s.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mayank Mohan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ramesh Chandra
======================================================
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 the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 7.200 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on secret
information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without
holding a proper investigation, when petitioner admittedly is a person
with clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18402 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
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 Bettiah Excise P.S. Case No. 202 of 2026, 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.