Patna High Court

Dilkhush KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The District Court must verify the ownership of the vehicle, and if it is not registered in the petitioner’s name, the petitioner is to be released on pre‑arrest bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Dilkhush Kumar, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly transporting 360 litres of illicit liquor in a Mahindra pick‑up vehicle. He contended that he is innocent, not the owner of the vehicle, and that the confessional statements of a co‑accused have no evidentiary value. The State opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail. The Court examined the FIR allegations and directed that the District Court must verify the vehicle's ownership using its registration, chassis and engine numbers. If the vehicle is found not to be registered in the petitioner’s name and is not a stolen vehicle, the petitioner should be released on pre‑arrest bail on such terms as the District Court deems fit. Accordingly, the bail application was disposed of with the above direction.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted when the accused claims non‑ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence
Whether a co‑accused’s confessional statement can be relied upon as evidence against the petitioner
Whether the District Court must verify vehicle ownership before deciding on bail

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
illicit liquor
vehicle ownership
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
confessional statement
clean antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21284 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Dilkhush Kumar son of Bhim Yadav Resident Of Village- Raghunathpur,
                 Ward No10, P S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr.Amarnath Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   16-04-2026                     Heard Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel appearing

                   on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned

                   APP for the State.

                                  2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Madhepura Excise P.S. Case No. 28 of 2026 registered for

                   the offence(s) punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(iii) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                  3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, 360 litres of

                   illicit liquor was recovered from Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle,

                   bearing registration No.BR11GC2089, Engine No.HL96k45057,

                   Chassis No.MA1FH2HLWJ6K20048.

                                  4.    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely

                   been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further

                   submitted that name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21284 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused / Deepak

                      Kumar and confessional statement made before police has no

                      evidentiary value. Petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle.

                      Petitioner has clean antecedent.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

                      prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

                                    6. Having heard the rival submissions made on

                      behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation

                      made in the FIR and it has been claimed that the petitioner is

                      not the owner of the said vehicle, I find that the learned

                      District Court under such circumstances is required to

                      verify the owner of the vehicle in question on the basis of

                      registration number, chassis number and engine number

                      and if it is found that the vehicle is not registered in the

                      name of the petitioner and the same is not the stolen vehicle,

                      then in that case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to

                      be released on pre-arrest bail, on such terms and conditions,

                      as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

                                     7. The bail application stands disposed of.


                                                (Purnendu Singh, J)

Sanjay/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…