Patna High Court
Sonu Dewan @ Danish RajaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Dewan, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, concerning the alleged recovery of 630 litres of liquor from a Scorpio. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the seized vehicle, and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement of Jitu Kumar made while in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail application. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bail bond, two sureties of the same amount, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can be relied upon to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged non‑ownership of the seized vehicle affects the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent satisfies the requirements for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1862 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Sonu Dewan @ Danish Raja S/o Raja Hussain @ Rajhusen @ Raju Dewan
R/o Village - Salemgarh, P.S - Tareya Sujan, District - Kushinagar, State -
Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 630 litres of liquor from a Scorpio.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of Jitu Kumar in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye
of law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1862 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
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, let 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 Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 204 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed
that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para
3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on
verification that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…