Patna High Court
Mukesh SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Mukesh Sahni, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018-22 for alleged recovery of 82.350 litres of liquor from a seized SUV. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not present at the spot of seizure, does not own the vehicle, and was implicated solely on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. If any prior case is found, the bail will be presumed concealed and the order will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018-22
- Whether the circumstances of the alleged seizure and the petitioner's clean antecedent justify the grant of provisional anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19718 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-794 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mukesh Sahni S/o- Kisori Sahni Village- Vijay Chhapra PS- Ahiyapur
District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay 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 Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018-22.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 82.350 litres of liquor from an SUV 500 vehicle. 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 secret information which is the easiest way to implicate
someone without holding a proper investigation when petitioner
admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19718 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.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 Excise P.S.
Case No.794/2025, 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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…