Patna High Court
Muslim @ Mohd. MuslimversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of a clean criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Muslim, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for the alleged recovery of 968.76 litres of liquor from three vehicles, one of which he owned. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not present at the spot of seizure, and was unaware that his friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that the seizure linked the petitioner to the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a six‑week window for surrender, and conditioned confirmation of the bail on verification of the petitioner’s clean antecedent. If any prior case is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21437 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-616 Year-2025 Thana- BASANTPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
Muslim @ Mohd. Muslim S/O Gulab Rahim Resident of Village - Basaon,
P.S. - Basantpur, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 968.76 litres of liquor from three vehices.
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 came to be implicated based on the fact that he is
owner of one of the seized vehicles. It is next submitted that no
prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing an
occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21437 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
and, hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted that
petitioner was completely unaware that his friend would misuse
the vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled 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 appearing on behalf of 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.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 Basantpur P.S.
Case No. 616 of 2025, 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 even one case,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21437 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…