Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to verification of antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning alleged recovery of 200 litres of liquor from a public Bhagwati Asthan. He argued that the liquor was not in his possession, the alleged recovery site did not belong to him, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. It directed that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one antecedent exists, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement of another accused in police custody can form the basis for arrest and denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.195 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-725 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Son of Dinesh Pawan R/o Village - Jamalpur, P.S. - Hajipur,
Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of
200 liters of liquor from a Bhagwati Asthan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged 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 based on confessional
statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
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, 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. 5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 725 of 2025 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 more than 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 has antecedent of
one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…