Patna High Court

Sanjay MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Mahto, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 103.68 litres of liquor from an auto he owned. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, had a clean antecedent, and was unaware that the vehicle would be used for the alleged offence. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle could create liability. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditioned the order on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to attract criminal liability.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a condition for confirming anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
vehicle ownership
criminal antecedent
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21104 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-884 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Mahto Son of Vinay Mahto Resident of Village- Laganpura, P.S.-
                 Bheldi, Distt.- Saran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sumit Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, 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 Sections 30(a) and

                   32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 103.68 liters of liquor from an Auto.

                                4. Learned      counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use

                   his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21104 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that

          Sanjay would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who

          was also apprehended from the spot.

                       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.

          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

          Muzaffarpur Excise P.S. Case No. 884 of 2024 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 even 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 is a
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21104 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                      anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…