Patna High Court
Santosh SahniversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted subject to bail bonds and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, provided the prosecution has not established possession of the seized liquor or a prima facie case.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Sahni, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with an excise case (Excise Act Sections 30(a), 30(c) and 36) involving alleged recovery of liquor from a public place. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, and the FIR relied on unnamed secret information, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s prior three excise cases. The Court, after hearing both sides, directed that provisional anticipatory bail be granted on the condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The order further stipulated that if more than three prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application was allowed, and the trial court was instructed to verify the antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in an excise case where the petitioner is alleged to have prior offences and no direct possession of the seized liquor.
- Whether the reliance on unnamed secret information in the FIR defeats the requirement of a prima facie case for bail.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC when granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c), 36
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
- FIR
- seizure
- public place
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18556 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Santosh Sahni, S/O Achal Sahni Resident of Village - Dakrama, P.S-
Hathouri, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Kumar
Mr. Shubham Samrat
Mr. Abhash
Mr. Kumar Gaurav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
======================================================
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
Sections 30(a), 30(c) and 36 of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 73.44 litres of liquor along with
105 litres of liquor from village Dakrama.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18556 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information.
It is next submitted that police in majority of cases implicating
innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar, local person,
secret information and confessional statement in a mechanical
manner without holding a proper investigation. It is also
submitted that petitioner in similar manner earlier also came to
be implicated in cases relating to excise.
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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18556 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
with Excise Case No.293 of 2021 arising out of P.R. No.31 of
2021, 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 three 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 three cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.