Patna High Court

Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and verification of his antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging recovery of 1,950 litres of liquor from two motorcycles and a sack, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He asserted a clean criminal record, claimed he was not in possession of the seized items, and argued that the watchman’s testimony was the sole basis of his implication. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offence. The Court examined the submissions, noted the lack of direct possession and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of antecedents by the trial court. The order is conditional on Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with confirmation if the petitioner’s clean record is verified.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30
clean antecedent
Criminal Procedure Code
BNSS

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1866 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-616 Year-2025 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Amit Kumar S/o Nando Yadav R/o Vill- Karma Tand, P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt-
                 Gaya
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, 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 1950 litres of liquor from two different motorcycles

                   and from a sack kept near a pit.

                                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 any of the seized vehicles and

                   came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then

                   it is submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1866 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                            2/3




          involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did

          not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when

          petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

                       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 Fatehpur

          P.S. Case No. 616 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1866 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…