Patna High Court
Arun Kumar @ Arun Raut @ Arun Raut @ Arun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail with conditions, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Arun Kumar petitioned for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor from a motorcycle and a location near his house. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the police had implicated him mechanically based on his father's statements without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing verification of his criminal antecedent. If more than three prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only three, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged excise offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of three cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the police investigation and the father's statements provide sufficient basis for arrest.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20578 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Arun Kumar @ Arun Raut @ Arun Raut @ Arun Kumar Son of Lalbabu
Prasad @ Lalbabu Raut Resident of Village and P.O.- Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur,
District- Saran at Chapra- 841417
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 15.84 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle and 28.64 litres of liquor from a place near the
house of Lalbabu Raut.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20578 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to
the petitioner but then is adjacent to his house and he came to be
implicated at the instance of the father of the petitioner, namely,
Lalbabu Raut in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that once
an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police
start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
It is also submitted that since the petitioner had antecedent
under the Excise Act, as such, the police implicated him through
his father.
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, let 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Panapur P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20578 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed
his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…