Patna High Court
Mithu Kumar Mandal @ Nitish Kumar MandalversusThe 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 his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithu Kumar Mandal, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 108 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no possession of the liquor, was not the vehicle's owner, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of another accused, made in police custody, can be the sole basis for implicating the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) inherent powers
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19713 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2025 Thana- BALUA BAZAR District- Supaul
======================================================
Mithu Kumar Mandal @ Nitish Kumar Mandal S/O Dasrath Mandal Resident
of Village- Balua Bazar, Police Station- Balua Bazar, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun .
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 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 Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 108 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
It is next submitted that 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 confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19713 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event
of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today,
be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.5000/- (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 Balua Bazar
P.S. Case No.35/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case, in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…