Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ankit KumarversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail may be granted to a person not in ownership or possession of the seized vehicle but cannot be granted to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Summary

The petitioners, Ankit Kumar and Bablu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a police seizure of 300.330 liters of illicit liquor from a vehicle and a truck, with Bablu Kumar being the registered owner of the seized auto. They argued that no incriminating material was found in their possession, they had clean antecedents, and that Ankit Kumar was neither owner nor driver of the vehicles. The State opposed the bail applications, citing the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The court refused anticipatory bail to Bablu Kumar, the owner, but granted it to Ankit Kumar, imposing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and subject to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directs that if Ankit Kumar is arrested within eight weeks, he shall be released on bail under the specified conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person not in ownership or possession of the seized vehicle (petitioner 1)
  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the registered owner of the seized vehicle (petitioner 2) despite the alleged offence

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • illicit liquor
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Section 30(a)
  • clean antecedent
  • ownership
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • bail bond

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19942 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2026 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ankit Kumar Son of Bhaglal Ray @ Bhagya Lal Ray Both are Resident of
                  Village - Pakari Pakohi, P.S. - Karza, District - Muzaffarpur.
           2.    Bablu Kumar Son of Nagendra Ray Both are Resident of Village - Pakari
                 Pakohi, P.S. - Karza, District - Muzaffarpur.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

                   State.

                                2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for

                   the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, total 300.330 liters illicit

                   liquor was recovered from the seized auto and truck. Petitioner

                   no. 2 is registered owner of the seized auto.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

                   submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from

                   conscious possession of the petitioners and they have got no

                   concern with the aforesaid recovery. Petitioner no. 1 is neither
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19942 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      owner nor driver of the vehicles in question and his name

                      transpired      during     investigation.       Petitioners   claim   clean

                      antecedent.

                                   5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

                      application.

                                   6. In view of the fact that petitioner no.2 is registered

                      owner of the seize auto, prayer for anticipatory bail of

                      petitioner no. 2 is refused.

                                   7. However, considering the nature of accusation and

                      clean antecedent, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.

                      1 is allowed and it is ordered that the above named petitioner

                      no.1 in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below

                      within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail

                      on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

                      sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

                      Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court II, Muzaffarpur in

                      connection with Karza P. S. Case No. 43 of 2026, subject to

                      condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya

                      Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.