Patna High Court
Jagpal @ Jagpal MalikversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Jagpal Malik, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 140.25 litres of liquor from a truck he owned. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was unaware of the misuse of his vehicle by a driver, and that ownership alone should not implicate him. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish bail bonds and sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. It further directed that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to establish culpability
- Effect of the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent on the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21184 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-536 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Jagpal @ Jagpal Malik Son of Hoshiyara @ Hoshiyar Singh R/o Village -
Saragthal, P.S. - Gohana, Dist. - Sonipat, State - Haryana.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Priya Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Madhuri Lata
======================================================
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 the
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 140.25 litres of liquor from a truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested 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.21184 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated
and at the same time shall bring disrepute to his business, it is
further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
Sunil 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. 5,000/- (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 Kuchaikot P.S. Case
No. 536 of 2025, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21184 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that
petitioner has antecedent of one case in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…