Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar BhartiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Bharti, sought anticipatory bail after the police alleged his involvement in an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, claiming he had recovered 21.5 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was neither in possession of the liquor nor the owner of the vehicle, and that the police had based their case on a failed purchase agreement without verifying facts. The State opposed the bail application. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged facts justify denial of bail on the ground of concealment of prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Section 30
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- seizure
- possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21056 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-613 Year-2022 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR District-
Darbhanga
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar Bharti Son of Ram Babu Yadav Resident of Village - Gausa,
P.O.- Gausaghat, P.S.- Sadar Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 21.5 liters of liquor from a
motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession. It is next
submitted that inadvertently at Para-7 it has been submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21056 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner had purchased the seized vehicle when petitioner had
not purchased the vehicle nor is the owner of the seized vehicle,
it is also submitted that petitioner intended to purchase the
motorcycle, but the deal failed, still the police implicated the
petitioner based on an agreement which was entered in between
him and the owner of the motorcycle without verifying the facts
in its correct perspective.
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, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
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 Sadar
Darbhanga P.S. Case No. 613 of 2022 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and
in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21056 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…