Patna High Court
Mahesh Kumar Ray @ Mahesh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail with conditions, to be confirmed upon verification of the petitioner’s clean antecedent.
Summary
Mahesh Kumar Ray sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case involving offences under several IPC sections (279, 353, 307, 427, 272, 273, 34) and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act relating to the alleged recovery of 108 litres of liquor from a sack thrown onto a car. The petitioner argued that he has a clean criminal record, was not caught in possession of the liquor, and was implicated solely on secret information, making the investigation suspect. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., granted provisional anticipatory bail on a modest bond and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents by the trial court. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if the petitioner’s clean record is verified, the bail will be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving multiple serious IPC offences and a prohibition act violation.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent and lack of possession of the alleged liquor justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. are appropriate for confirming or cancelling the provisional bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 279, 307, 34, 353, 427
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20073 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2023 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Mahesh Kumar Ray @ Mahesh Ray Son of Maldu Ray Resident of Village -
Kushaha, P.S.- Pato, District - Sapatri (Nepal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 279, 353, 307, 427, 272,
273, 34 of the IPC and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 108 litres of liquor from a sack allegedly thrown on a car.
It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as
such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession 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 and he has no concern with the sack or the vehicle which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20073 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/2
fled.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
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 Laukahi P.S. Case
No.38/2023, 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…